Using Ratings In An Argument Does Not Work

[ZeroVX]

Whenever I see an argument for why one company is better or why one company sucks, the ratings the company has been getting usually come up. This simply does not work. People seem to think that ratings = quality, but that is simply not the case.

The ratings that pop up every week are measurements of how many people are watching the shows. NOT how good the show was. You could have one company with an awesome show, if people didn't watch it, the ratings will decrease. Likewise, if a company put on an awful show, if people were watching it, the ratings will increase.

I'll make an example. I watched TNA solely last night, rather than flipping between it and RAW like I usually do. Mainly because RAW wasn't on because of NCAA, but regardless, that's what happened. It was awful. It was one of the worst episodes of a wrestling program I have ever seen. They managed to piss me off much more than WWE ever has. Their ratings actually increased from last week.

Leave the ratings to the companies who are actually worried about them. If you want to argue for or against a company, use the actual product.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I think I see what you're trying to say Zero, but the ratings are STILL a big factor when you want to argue who's product is better. During Wrestlemania season last month, WWE was crushing TNA in the ratings, and back then, they clearly had the better product than TNA. If I remember correctly, AM Raw, which comes on at 2 AM in the morning by the way, beat Impact in the ratings. When more people prefer to watch a re run/highlight show of Raw instead of Impact, then that isn't a good sign for TNA no matter how you look at it.

If more people prefer to watch WWE over TNA, then the ratings are definitely a big factor when arguing who's product is better. There must be reasons why more people want to watch WWE over TNA. Whether it be because WWE is more popular or because they have the better product, more people are choosing to watch WWE instead of TNA. Now of course all of this can change over time, and we will just have to wait and see how things will unfold.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Actually, to some degree, ratings are a big factor. Ratings are an especially big factor when you consider TNA's attempt to engage the WWE in a ratings war. TNA's primary focus in 2010 has been to increase ratings and draw more viewers to its product. That's the reason why TNA brought in Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Jeff Hardy, RVD and a number of other recognizable names. Now, whether anyone agrees with how some or all of these wrestlers have been booked creatively is a different matter. But, they were all hired by TNA in an attempt to build up their numbers.

Anybody can declare one company as better than the other and not really even have to have any solid reason why. Some say "I like TNA better because...." or "I like WWE better because...." and then some lame answer will be given usually. Fans can debate as to who has the better roster, who has the better wrestlers, who has better creative ideas and so on and so forth and nothing will ever be solved because those are all topics that are completely subjective. There is no definitive answer to them because all of them rely on opinions.

Television ratings, however, aren't open to debate nor are they subjective. They simply inform the number of people that watch whichever show. Some watch WWE because they think its a better product and some watch TNA because they think it has a better product. Raw typically draws 5.3-5.5 million viewers on a weekly basis while iMPACT! is drawing roughly a fifth of that. Does it mean Raw is better? To some, I'm sure it does mean that. Did the fact that TNA had Lacey Von Erich doing some sort of striptease at the end of the show make it better than Raw? I'm sure it did to some people.

At the end of the day, ratings show where a product is standing. When shows like WWE Superstars and AM Raw are either on the verge of outdrawing iMPACT!, or even do wind up outdrawing iMPACT!, on a regular basis, then that means there's something screwy with the TNA product. These are shows that couldn't touch TNA this time last year. WWE Superstars is just a straight up wrestling show and AM Raw airs at 2 AM on Saturday Night, stays on for an hour, and just shows some of the best highlights of Raw that week.

 

[philbrooks]

Leave the ratings to the companies who are actually worried about them. If you want to argue for or against a company, use the actual product.

Tell that to TNA as they script ratings to be as important as titles on their TV show. Wrestlers frequently state they are good for ratings and matches are often booked by authority figures to boost ratings.

This is were this argument falls flat I afraid.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Although I agree that ratings don't necessarily dictate who has the better product (I felt WWF during late 97-early 98 was better than WCW, but WCW still had the better ratings) but ratings are a big factor in determining the better product.

Saying "TNA is better than WWE" or "WWE is better than TNA" is really just the opinion of one person and nobody else. What the ratings show is how many people are watching said show, so if TNA and WWE are on at the same time, and more people watch WWE, that means that more people THINK that WWE has the superior product. Are ratings a cut and dry way of determining a superior product? No, but they do show where the majority of the wrestling fans lie.

For example, I believe South Park is a superior show to Family Guy, but its obvious that the average population doesn't think so because although South Park gets good ratings, the ratings are no where near Family Guy's ratings (even if you ever read rankings from lets say TV guide, they will say South Park is the better show but it doesn't matter because Family Guy gets the big ratings), so even though I think that South Park is leaps and bounds above Family Guy (and it is), it's really irrelevant because Family Guy has more viewership and people watching, which means they are the ones that make the most money.

Not only that, Bischoff and Hogan live and die by the TV ratings (pretty much every WCW wrestler confirmed this), they care more about ratings than PPV buyrates or profit, to them TV ratings aren't the biggest thing, they are the ONLY thing.

Back to my original point, ratings determine what the average TV audience thinks what is the better product, so even though you can't completely judge quality from TV ratings, they are still a big factor in determining what the average person prefers to watch.

 

[ZeroVX]

I think there's something people are forgetting when it comes to the whole ratings thing. Like I said, ratings determine how many people are watching, not the quality of the show. That's the original point I was trying to make. You can't argue which show has the better ratings, because it isn't debatable, which is why that wasn't what I meant. I meant that using ratings to determine which show is better doesn't work.

The show being bad isn't the sole reason not enough people are watching. Technically, people wouldn't watch an episode because the previous show was bad and they're annoyed with the company in general. The company could come back and make a better show than they did last week, but if people didn't watch, ratings will show that. And there could be other reasons, such as boycotting the company for other reasons, not watching wrestling altogether, or simply not knowing the show was on.

The point I wanted to make was that ratings can't automatically equal a good or bad product. Hence, they can't be used in arguments over which product is better.

 

[philbrooks]

The point I wanted to make was that ratings can't automatically equal a good or bad product. Hence, they can't be used in arguments over which product is better.

Again you are wrong in saying ratings they can't be used in arguments over which product is better as TNA have established ratings on screen as a reason for matches to occur. It is almost akin to star ratings for them both in storyline and in real life.

 

[Remix]

It depends what you're arguing. If you're arguing over quality/enjoyment of a show, then it absolutely does not matter. How many people watched a show is irrelevant to how good a show is or how much you enjoyed it.

However if you're arguing over whether or not TNA's move to Monday night was a success, or if the X-Division is a draw then ratings are important, because it's the only way we can know what people are watching, and which segments they're watching.

 

[LigerBomb]

Viewing ratings as a simple read of who watched what when and by how many, is short sighted, and provides the least telling minimum of usable data if viewed in such a simple manner. Instead, as with all number compiling systems, one must look beyond the numbers and apply meaning, situation, and context to gain true insight.
Two of the most telling things about who people truly are, are how they spend their time, and what they spend their money on. Words can lie, but actions and investments don't. In a day and age where people are over-worked and take on more and more responsibility, seeing their personal time dwindle in the process, television ratings representing a viewer's choice and habits, become quite telling.
When two shows, that have similar target audiences and subject, go head to head and one trounces the other it's a clear sign that people overwhelmingly decided that their precious time would best be spent, and enjoyed, watching show A rather than show B. If anything this simple fact invites questions like; "What is show A doing right and what is show B doing wrong (or less right)?" or perhaps; "Why do people choose/prefer show A over show B?" etc.,etc.,etc... Clearly it also displays that one quality (or lack there of) a show has is it's ability to attract or maintain an audience, of course barring the unusual events you alluded to i.e. when a competing show doesn't air and the other show sees a ratings boost due to lack of competition that week.
While a single rating comparison wouldn't and shouldn't form the entire basis of a proper position in a debate it does tell a part of the story, and a compelling one at that. Aggregate ratings, when read and interpreted properly do hold weight, and do have meaning and can imply numerous qualities a show has or lacks; it's not just rote information collected for the sake of being collected. Therefore ZeroVX while your position in it's most basal and flat reading is correct and observably accurate it's also quite fatuous.

 

[Davi323]

The only people who would claim ratings don't matter are those on the losing end...TNA fans. Ratings do matter. If you try something new, and your ratings go down, you know that maybe what you are doing isn't working so well. On the other hand, if your ratings go up slightly, you know that there might be something to what you are doing. Ratings can be seen as kind of a measuring stick. If TNA's ratings keep dropping by a percentage point consistently, that is a clear indication that TNA is losing fans, that what they are presenting on television is not working, and maybe its time to go a different direction. If their ratings were growing by a few percentage points each week, indicating that they are gaining in audience, TNA would know to keep it up.

Just claiming "TNA is better" or "WWE is better" without any kind of quantifiable logic behind it, without something concrete you can point to, make the opinion completely subjective. If you can say "WWE/TNA is better, because of the following reasons..." then you have something at least, to lean on. Ratings are one of those things that can be used, along with attendance, merchandise sales, PPV buys, etc. These are all things that are measurable.

But, really, all that is less important than this one, simple, undeniable fact. If TNA's ratings keep going down, Spike TV will take them off the air. Spike's personal grudge against the WWE not-withstanding, they are a business, and if they can make money off of TNA, great. If TNA gets to the point where Spike isn't getting a good return on their investment, they might take TNA off the air, and put something else on that will generate more revenue. The lower the ratings for TNA, the more tenuous their position on Spike TV is. If TNA's ratings go up, the company succeeds. If the ratings keep going down, the company fails, and in all likelihood, folds.

Ratings don't matter? Bullshit. Ratings are going to make or break TNA.

 

[ch46745]

Ratings are one the most important things not only when it comes to wrestling but when it come to all TV shows in a whole. Ratings determine whether a TV show stays on air or gets canceled. If Raw had bad ratings I doubt it would still be coming on now. Even pro sports leagues( NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) thrive on ratings because more viewers means more money and it keeps the owner(s) of the station and the TV station producers happy so you will not get canceled or get your shows contract terminated by the station.

 

[Arkham Noir]

Saying "TNA is better than WWE" or "WWE is better than TNA" is really just the opinion of one person and nobody else. What the ratings show is how many people are watching said show, so if TNA and WWE are on at the same time, and more people watch WWE, that means that more people THINK that WWE has the superior product. Are ratings a cut and dry way of determining a superior product? No, but they do show where the majority of the wrestling fans lie.

That sums the whole thing up.

I am one who has used the ratings as a argument in the WWE vs TNA arguments, the point to note here is that I use it to argue which is superior. Even the biggest TNA mark can't argue against WWE being superior, because it simply draws more. As fans, we base what is better by our preferences, but we still must remember that these companies don't grow money on trees.ECW had the same problem, they can appease their fans with the greatest product ever, but if they are not making money than they are failing.period.That is the cold and simple truth.We might not like some of the segments on RAW, but it attracts people and pays the bills.

 

[j.beaner]

Well i couldnt agree with you more. If your talking product wise, if your talking which show is putting on the better program then, yes i do believe that the ratings dont matter. Now im not a TNA mark, but i honestly believe that TNA has been blowing WWE away product wise. Now WWE puts on Entertaining Televison, but the truth is People really just dont care about TNA. People Will watch TNA they were having 1.---something ratings on Thursdays. But the fans had to choose TNA or WWE. WWE has Main event players on RAW. (Cena, Orton, Triple H, Sheamus, Big Show, Miz, ECT.) But TNA has the talent its just wronge booking problems and not knowing how to push talent. so fans want to see WWE and there stars. But dispite some fans choosing WWE, i want to see TNA, as i previously said i think they have the better televison. Their Knockouts can Wrestle, They have an X-Divsion, They have Legends, And their stars go out there and really wrestle hard every night. While WWE has Some crappy Guest Host. Santino Marella, Hornswaggle, and family fun humor. so i am a much bigger fan of watching Wrestling then watching a few people i could care less about cut a dumb promo. So product wise TNA is better dispite what the ratings may show up as. The better things in life dont always get the most reconization.

 

[Tenta]

Whenever I see an argument for why one company is better or why one company sucks, the ratings the company has been getting usually come up. This simply does not work. People seem to think that ratings = quality, but that is simply not the case.

Well, yes. Yes it does, Zero. Mainly because more people will watch a better show. Wrestling fans aren't dumb; if a bad show is being televised, they aren't going to watch. That's why fans abandoned WCW for the WWE during the Attitude Era; WCw was putting on sheer shit for a show, and the WWE was putting on entertaining television. Wrestling fans wisened up, and left the WCW for the sinking Titanic it was. So yes, your theory holds no weight. However, this is a different war, so let's see what else you got.

The ratings that pop up every week are measurements of how many people are watching the shows. NOT how good the show was.

No, but it's a trend that is undeniable: When a show is good, the ratings start to rise. And when the writing is poor, the ratings will slip. It's a simple mathmatic equation, really.

You could have one company with an awesome show, if people didn't watch it, the ratings will decrease. Likewise, if a company put on an awful show, if people were watching it, the ratings will increase.

But that's not likely to happen. Eventually, people will abandon ship so quickly on a poor show. Just ask Eric Bischoff how 1999 went for the guy.

I'll make an example. I watched TNA solely last night, rather than flipping between it and RAW like I usually do. Mainly because RAW wasn't on because of NCAA, but regardless, that's what happened. It was awful. It was one of the worst episodes of a wrestling program I have ever seen. They managed to piss me off much more than WWE ever has. Their ratings actually increased from last week.

Well, yeah, becuase it was running unopposed. Usually, wrestling fans will try to find their fix. I assure you, this little trend of rising ratings will not hold to next week.

Leave the ratings to the companies who are actually worried about them. If you want to argue for or against a company, use the actual product.

Fine; the better show, typically, has more viewers, because everyone watches the good show. What's so hard about that?

 

[Kingofthedeathmatch]

In the case of TNA if they have a 1.0 rating one week and the next week they get a .6 while RAW on the other hand has a steady rating every week there is an argument there. If fans who were watching the week before don't bother to tune in the next week then that company is not doing something right. But if TNA's ratings continue to rise but they are still much lower than RAW's you cant base the quality of the product on their rating just because they aren't on the same level as their bigger and more well-known competition.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

As I mentioned in my first post, what counts as quality is something that is completely subjective and based on opinions of viewers. For instance, there are some that post on here sometimes that would love to see TNA become something of a mix between a porn movie and the original ECW. To them, naked chicks running around and having blood spilled or being put through tables or whatever is their idea of a truly quality show. Some feel that quality would be TNA essentially making the X Division the center of the show. I've no doubt that some feel last Monday's episode of iMPACT! was a quality show. What counts as quality is a matter of personal opinion.

I suppose, if you think on it, ratings could be considered a representation of opinion as well. After all, they reflect the number of people watching shows. That means that there must be some qualities about a certain show that keeps them tuning in week after week instead of watching something else on the same night and timeslot. If well 5.5 million people reguarly decide to watch WWE Raw, they must think it's the superior product and its vice versa for the TNA audience. Does the fact that TNA draws roughly a fifth of the WWE audience automatically make it a completely inferior company? No, not at all, but the size of the audience watching is something that cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant when it comes to regarding the overall presentation of a product.

The Beatles are often called the greatest band in history. They're arguably the biggest icons of 20th Century music and have sold over 1 billion albums worldwide. Now, does that mean they're really the greatest band in history? It all depends on who you ask. I personally don't think so, but the sheer size of their audience and the fact that they put out a product that's been readily bought by millions over a span of generations is something that cannot be overlooked. To some degree, the WWE is much the same way. The WWE wrestles before millions of people a year both in arenas and in front of television audiences. The numbers Raw does often ranks it as the single most watched television program on each and every cable channel and the WWE has fans that literally span generations.

What counts as quality is and always will be subjective. The fact that Raw's audience is roughly 5 times that of TNA iMPACT! holds that the majority of wrestling fans do seem to prefer WWE's product over TNA, at least for now. That could always change in the future.

 

[Robin_Everheart]

Think of that average 1.0 rating for TNA gets as the 18 to 35 demographic that gave up on WWE because they are catering to children now with their PG rating.

We were left high and dry when the Attitude era abruptly ended and, at the time, there was no competitive product to turn to.

Ratings do matter but I think it would be more prudent for TNA to watch their own ratings for now and try to top themselves rather than worry about what WWE is doing. They're not going to high those figures for a long while and concentrating on improving their own product is what needs to be done.

WWE should be more concerned with the rapidly growing fan base of the UFC than TNA, though the two combined are the complete opposition (whereas TNA needs to be careful not to be overshadowed by UFC on the same network, lest they lose their timeslot).

It's a different landscape now than during the Monday Night Wars. This is not a new one. TNA hasn't even topped the worst WCW Nitro numbers yet, it's hardly a "War" at this point.

 

[jamaal mayes]

THIS IS WHY THEY WENT PG



Sure, fans care about total viewers, and they are good numbers to throw around in press releases and in general because it’s an easy number everyone understands. If you start getting into discussion of the 18-49 demographic with the masses of fans it begs a lot of questions, starting with “huh?” and usually ending with some comment like “That’s crazy, people over 50 have more money to spend than some punk 22 year old kid!”
Nonetheless, we focus on adults 18-49 because for primetime, it and adults 18-34 are the best generic measures of a show’s success. The ad rates are set based on the amount of younger viewers and success in selling advertising is typically the biggest factor in whether a show gets renewed or canceled.
As an example, earlier this week Bill Carter had an article in the New York Times about how although Dancing With the Stars has actually had a couple of wins over American Idol, it basically just amounts to chest thumping in press releases. American Idol charges $642,000 for a 30 second commercial spot while Dancing With the Stars is selling 30 seconds of ad time at $209,000 per spot.
Mr. Carter explains the huge difference in the advertising rates:
Why the huge disparity? Because the two shows, while now close in overall viewers, have vastly different audience profiles. These can be summed up in simple terms: “Dancing” is heavily female and older; “Idol” is heavily female and younger.
“Dancing” is a show with a serious tilt toward women viewers over 50 years old. Last week, for example, of those 23 million total viewers, 10 million, or about 43 percent, were women over 50. (Another 3.9 million were men over 50.)

 

[Tastycles]

How is it that PG gets brought into everything. Raw is not aimed at under 18s, it is merely suitable for them. No network on planet earth would let their most popular show start catering for the audience with the least disposable income. To prove that point, WWE's ratings demographics are as follows

# 61% are male
# 15% are ages 12-17
# 67% are ages 18-49
# 41% are males 18-34

That's pretty telling. TNA has similar demographics.

Onto the matter at hand, all a objective opinion on wrestling is a collection of subjective ones. The Knockouts segment may well have been awful, but a large portion of the audience wanted to see it, and that says a lot. Quarter hourly ratings are misleading, because they can be skewed by bait and switches, but the show as a whole is judged by how many people want to watch it. It has to be. I do get the impression though that TNA are trying to get ratings first, quality second, which is not how you make a good product, or even draw big ratings in the long term.

 

[Davi323]

PG means kids. That means the WWE is safer to let your kids watch, safer to take them to, safer to buy merchandise.

why do you think most the highest grossing movies are family friendly? because those adults not only buy tickets for themselves, they buy for their kids too. The WWE is simply smarter than TNA, because they understand a more kid friendly show means more ticket sales, more merchandise. Not only that, but kids that are allowed to watch the WWE but not TNA grow up WWE fans, not TNA fans. It means 20 years from now, the WWE will have all those fans TNA missed out on, because mom and dad wouldn't let them watch. TNA can cater to one demographic, but what are they doing to get the next generation of wrestling fans?

 

[Crippler CrossFace]

Am I the only one that thinks that since TNA is available online that the ratings are skewed.

Why the hell would I miss Raw, which is hard to find after it airs, to watch TNA when I can wait till Wednesday and watch TNA online with only 5 captain morgan commercials each lasting 30 seconds. I think that a lot of people either don't know this or chose to ignore it for whatever reason.

With that said, I can understand what your saying that when it comes down to a pure argument over which product is better then ratings are not really a valid argument. Ratings are just a popularity contest and nothing more. Think about it, whichever is more popular is going to have higher ratings. That's kinda common sense.

 

[Rafather]

ratings are everything. majority of wrestling fans approve of wwe over tna. its a simple concept that everyone in entertainment agree to with movie ticket sales, sporting events, the music people buy, its all the same.

your personal view might be different but that doesn't mean you are right. millions thought the nazis were right but lost the ratings war both in the public eye and in the military defeat.

raf

 

[The Champ]

Ratings should not be used in an argument as to which show was better, but they should be used to prove that TNA were idiots for moving to Mondays and they're probably never going to have success in that timeslot. Even if they put on the best wrestling show of all time, if people aren't watching it, they're not going to beat the WWE, plain and simple. Since their product is far from the best wrestling show of all time, and they're only getting ECW/NXT-type ratings against Raw on Mondays, I would say that it's been a failed experiment and they should move back to Thursdays if they want to survive.

 

[Chrome]

That sums the whole thing up.

I am one who has used the ratings as a argument in the WWE vs TNA arguments, the point to note here is that I use it to argue which is superior. Even the biggest TNA mark can't argue against WWE being superior, because it simply draws more. As fans, we base what is better by our preferences, but we still must remember that these companies don't grow money on trees.ECW had the same problem, they can appease their fans with the greatest product ever, but if they are not making money than they are failing.period.That is the cold and simple truth.We might not like some of the segments on RAW, but it attracts people and pays the bills.

Ratings are not an arguement. Here is why...

Someone explain this to me...

WWE has great ratings in the USA.

However TNA beats WWE in the UK ratings wise..

So do ratings matter?? Is one country ratings more important than the next?

NO. I have NO idea why people are so Anal that there is no ratings outside of the USA and that only the USA ratings matter but its simply not the truth. The whole question on ratings goes BOTH ways.

In an arguement in which you like better WWE or TNA it should be based on personal opinion on which show you genuinly liked.

Take ratings out of the equation and just be honest with yourself.

Here is proof regarding TNA beating WWE in the UK (Bravo)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...n-the-UK-Impact-on-Bravo-gets-huge-boost.html

http://www.thewrestlinggame.com/wrestling/news/tna_beats_raw_smackdown_tna_and_raw_ratings.asp

http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/n...A-UK-Ratings-Rise,-More-On-Wrestling-Play.htm

http://www.owwfan.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25889


Its been like that week in and week out for weeks now.


So does this "opinion" that ratings matter in the regard of which brand is better? NO absolutley NOT so it should NOT be in an arguement. So I agree with the OP here..

In short across seas TNA seems to be owning WWE. In the USA WWE has better ratings.. so whats the outcome here to the casual fan? answer? NOTHING!!! its all about personal preferance.

I really wish people get off this rightous BS over crap that does not impact any of us in any way.

 

[Davi323]

First, in the UK, TNA has the benefit of a MUCH better time slot...it would be interesting to see what would happen if RAW got a favorable air time.

Second, the population of the UK is around 61 million, the population of the USA is around 307 million. So is one country more important than the other in terms of the amount of people who watch pro wrestling? Obviously, yes. TNA and the WWE are broadcast on American networks primarily, it is American advertisers that are paying the bulk of advertising revenue to the two companies. Both companies cater to American audiences. It's American audiences who buy the bulk of tickets, the bulk of merchandise. TNA and the WWE make more money in the US than they do anywhere else. Simply put, American viewers ARE more important to each company than British viewers are, because of the bottom line. Money. Cash. Moolah. Bread. Dough. They get more of it from Americans. If TNA's ratings continue to flounder on Spike, who has invested a serious cash investment in the company, and Spike isn't getting a return on their investment, they take TNA off the air. Do you want to argue that the UK station TNA airs on is going to keep them financially afloat without an American cable company's backing? TNA's survival is dependent on the moods of Panda Energy and Spike TV. If either one of them decides TNA has become a bad investment and withdraws, TNA goes away. If your UK station drops TNA, would it really significantly impact TNA's potential survival? Doubtful.

But, lets take your argument into consideration...if you want to apply equal strength to the ratings of the USA and those of the UK, lets add them together. Lets combine total viewership, and look at those numbers. Does TNA draw more total viewers than the WWE? Or does the WWE still crush TNA in terms of total people watching? The WWE consistently outdraws TNA by 3:1 margins or higher in the USA, a difference of millions of viewers. The difference between viewers in the UK is not nearly so many.

Using UK ratings to negate US ratings is what is ridiculous here. The sheer volume of viewership in the USA compared to the UK makes your argument fall flat.