Using Ratings In An Argument Does Not Work

[Jack-Hammer]

I know that some like to mention that TNA beats Raw in the ratings over in the UK. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't. Let's tell it the way it actually is. TNA does not beat Raw in the weekly ratings over in the UK each and every week. The past several weeks, if I'm not mistaken, Raw has beaten iMPACT! ratings wise. For the week ending April 11, 2010:

Impact from April 5
drew 110,000 viewers on April 10 (a gain of 35,000 viewers); 37,000 viewers watched a "replay" on Bravo+1 an hour later (down -14,000 viewers for that airing)

Raw from April 5
drew 127,000 viewers in the live airing (-6,000)
drew 36,000 viewers on the Thursday replay (April 8; -30,000)
drew 47,000 viewers on Friday night's replay

SmackDown from April 9
drew 104,000 in its first airing (-15,000)
drew 35,000 in a replay on Saturday afternoon
drew 32,000 in a replay on Saturday night

Superstars from April 7
drew 19,000 in a replay that aired on Saturday night April 10

NXT from April 6
drew 29,000 viewers in what was its first airing on Thursday April 8
drew 32,000 viewers in a replay on Saturday night April 10

Those are the latest UK numbers that have been received as of now. Raw didn't score a huge victory, but they did score one. Sometimes, TNA wins, sometimes WWE wins.

 

[Chrome]

I know that some like to mention that TNA beats Raw in the ratings over in the UK. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't. Let's tell it the way it actually is. TNA does not beat Raw in the weekly ratings over in the UK each and every week.
Those are the latest UK numbers that have been received as of now. Raw didn't score a huge victory, but they did score one. Sometimes, TNA wins, sometimes WWE wins.

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

Unless you don't live in the USA and could care less.

So what your saying is that TNA DOES Win across seas? So there is a ratings war taking place over there right? Soo how does ratings fit into the arguement now of who is better? (my answer still stands.. IT DOESN'T) so using ratings as a stance to say who is BETTER is wrong. Some poeple don't even give TNA a chance, some only watch WWE because of nostalgia, some don't even know about Spike TV. there many reasons..but its all a matter of prefferance to the person. Some will say that ECW was the best and most inovative federation of all time and there ratings sucked! does that mean that ECW sucked too? NO it doesn't its the same senrio with TNA.

 

[Davi323]

ECW aired at 12 midnight on Saturday nights where I live. It had a horrible time slot its entire existence. What kind of ratings would you expect? Further, it aired on TNN which is now Spike...the same network TNA is on now. Except for a major difference. TNA has a good time slot, prime time, just like RAW, not in the middle of the night. And yet it gets crushed every week. I watched the real ECW, and it was entertaining. TNA is anything but. You simply cannot compare TNA to ECW, the situations are entirely different.

But...if you insist...The only ratings I could find for the real ECW were between 99-00, and ECW consistently drew the same ratings TNA does now. Crappy time slot and all. So, ECW and TNA are on the same channel. ECW and TNA are drawing approximately the same amount of fans. ECW had a terrible time slot, TNA has a cushy time slot. Well, why aren't TNA's ratings better then?

Easy. Because ECW offered a product worth staying up for, something completely different than what else was airing. TNA offers a terrible product, pretending that it is 12 years ago. TNA isn't offering anything new, its offering us 1998 all over again. We have already been there, done that, and the ratings reflect it. There are a lot more people watching TV between 8-11 on a Monday night than there are at 12 midnight on a Saturday. Yet, TNA is drawing no better than ECW did. If TNA was the same quality as ECW was, it should be getting 2.0-3.0 ratings, because of the much more favorable time slot.

 

[Chrome]

Davi again I ask...

How does ratings prove that your show is better? That IS what the topic of this thread is right?

And the asnwer is still...

IT DOESN'T as you just admitted with ECW being a good product even with crap ratings regardless of timeslot. Heck WCW was having better ratings than TNA before they got sold.. PROOF fact is tho TNA now is better than WCW was product wise before they were sold. HOWEVER the ratings do not show that as seen below.

TNA 2010 > WCW 2001

Let me ask this ... what if I am right? what if your right? what do we win for going back and forth here?

Fact is Ratings don't mean squat. There have been plenty of shows that have been cancelled that were great based on ratings. Does it mean that the show sucked? NO it could be any variable of things. In this case TNA is still growing, In a year I can see them being at 2.0-3.0 easy. Baby steps people baby steps.. TNA currently is more exciting to watch in my opinion. But thats not to say that I do not enjoy WWE either.. I just think its totally stupid to be on one side of the fence or the other.. if your a wrestling fan then be a wrestling fan THIS is why across seas TNA does well..

In the USE everyone needs to belong to one side or another to be wanted or accepted.. Example : in Politics there some people that are die hard republicans or democrats that will ONLY vote for that party regardless how stupid the person running for office is. Because they feel obligated too.. In reality the best method is to NOT be apart of a system and see things clearly.. I have voted for both repbublicans and Democrats as everyone is different and brings various things in. But these die hards soley vote for one side or another because of party and not because of the individual.

There many examples of this but I just used politics as an example.. to have a click is dumb. people can enjoy both so uses ratings is NOT a way to justify the what is better.. its just a way to justify the public awareness of the show.

Nothing more.. again.. what do I win here again?

 

[Davi323]

You miss the significance of timeslots. But, let me explain it clearly, so perhaps you have a chance to understand. The amount of people watching TV on any given monday night is going to be significantly more than the amount of people watching TV at midnight on a saturday. That means ECW was grabbing a much larger share of the available TV viewers.

Getting a 1.0 cable rating at 12am on saturday is good, very good. Getting a 1.0 on a monday night between 8-10 is NOT good. Not when your competition is getting 3 times the ratings. Its obvious that you have never done any statistical analysis, because if you had, you would understand that ECW's 1.0 ratings on a saturday night are far more significant than TNA's 1.0s on mondays. Same amount of viewers, but ECW grabbed a much larger percentage of TV viewers for its timeslot.

You want to say that timeslots are irrelevant, and you couldn't be more wrong. If timeslot A has 100,000,000 total television viewers, and timeslot B only gets 50,000,000, half of timeslot A's, clearly, if they get the same amount of people watching, it means a much different percentage. Nielsen ratings give you one point for every 1,149,000 people. Just for the sake of easy math, so you can follow along, lets adjust that to a clean 1,000,000. So, 1 point = 1 million viewers. Lets say both get a rating of 5, so 5,000,000 viewers for each show. For timeslot A, that means they had 5% of the available viewing audience. For timeslot B, it means they had 10% of the available audience. I ask you, is 10% of the available audience significantly better than 5%? The answer is yes, it is.

But, you continue to miss the really big picture. Without ratings, your argument that ratings don't determine which is better goes away...because if TNA doesn't improve its ratings, it might go away, and that would end your argument real quick, wouldn't it? With better ratings, TNA can charge more for advertising on its show. That means more money coming in, which means more money that it can pay to its wrestlers, more money that can be spent on the set, the lighting, more money that can go into the actual production of the show. If you read the pro-WWE comments in the myriad of "why do you watch WWE or TNA" type threads, you see that a lot of pro-WWE fans will not even bother with TNA, because the production quality is so shoddy. It's television, appearance is important. As long as TNA continues to ignore that simple fact, they will continue to languish in their piss poor ratings with crappy sets. Even if the wrestling quality was equal to the WWE (which is isn't, but for the sake of argument), the WWE looks better. Which would you rather watch...an NFL game broadcast by a major network, with professional announcers, cameramen, etc, what you see every sunday, or an NFL game broadcast by people with handi-cams? Same teams, same quality of play...And yet, you TNA supporters have to claim that the handi-cam game is just as good. Get real. If given the choice, you know you are going to watch the glitzy big network produced game. It's the nature of the beast called television.

Stop missing the forest for the trees. Without ratings, and the money they bring, TNA doesn't exist, so any discussion about if its better is completely moot.

 

[HBKevin]

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.

It's true that people aren't forced to watch the better show, but how good the show is, is largely subjective, unless they're just botching every match. Basically, the better show is the one that people like more, and that gets them to keep watching. You can say a wrestling program is good or bad based on different factors, like in-ring work, promos, angles, production quality, star power, booking, etc., but unless it's entertaining, people won't watch. The higher rated show is the one that more people found entertaining, and that's all that really matters to the business aspect. The only thing that might influence people to watch the worse show is if they don't know about the other show from lack of advertising, or just brand loyalty from habit. But if it's bad enough, they're going to change the channel anyway.

 

[Davi323]

Considering TNA commercials end up airing during RAW, and Impact is on the same cable channel RAW used to be on, I have a hard time with the "RAW watchers don't know TNA is on or they would switch, and if they do, they may not know about SpikeTV" arguments.

 

[Slyfox696]

You miss the significance of timeslots. But, let me explain it clearly, so perhaps you have a chance to understand. The amount of people watching TV on any given monday night is going to be significantly more than the amount of people watching TV at midnight on a saturday. That means ECW was grabbing a much larger share of the available TV viewers.

Getting a 1.0 cable rating at 12am on saturday is good, very good. Getting a 1.0 on a monday night between 8-10 is NOT good. Not when your competition is getting 3 times the ratings. Its obvious that you have never done any statistical analysis, because if you had, you would understand that ECW's 1.0 ratings on a saturday night are far more significant than TNA's 1.0s on mondays. Same amount of viewers, but ECW grabbed a much larger percentage of TV viewers for its timeslot.

You just contradicted your own argument.

ECW was pulling in 1.0 ratings, with no other WRESTLING competition, at a time when the WCW and WWF were pulling in combined ratings between 9.0-10.0. ECW, on a night by itself, was pulling in roughly 10% of the available WRESTLING audience. TNA is currently pulling the same rating ECW did, except they're doing it on a night when other wrestling is on a different channel at the exact same time. PLUS, their 1.0 rating is roughly 33% of the available wrestling audience, a much higher percentage than what ECW was doing by itself.

Oh, and as for your "larger percentage of TV viewers" argument, it's completely irrelevant. The amount of television channels now is FAR greater than what it was back in the late 90s, early 2000, plus the ability to watch shows on the Internet, or record them on DVR was non-existent.


Your ONLY valid argument is ECW's timeslot, but even that is irrelevant, since both TNA and WWE have shown that a GOOD wrestling program will be put in prime time, whereas ECW obviously was not a good wrestling program, since it was slated at the timeslot you keep mentioning.


As for as the argument that ratings determine quality, anyone who says that ratings has nothing to do with quality is just being ridiculous. Ratings are the MAJOR determinant of television quality. PPV buys are dependent upon quality of product, but ratings reflect quality of the television show. If the television show wasn't good, then people wouldn't watch it.

Just ask ECW.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Unless you don't live in the USA and could care less.

So what your saying is that TNA DOES Win across seas? So there is a ratings war taking place over there right? Soo how does ratings fit into the arguement now of who is better? (my answer still stands.. IT DOESN'T) so using ratings as a stance to say who is BETTER is wrong. Some poeple don't even give TNA a chance, some only watch WWE because of nostalgia, some don't even know about Spike TV. there many reasons..but its all a matter of prefferance to the person. Some will say that ECW was the best and most inovative federation of all time and there ratings sucked! does that mean that ECW sucked too? NO it doesn't its the same senrio with TNA.

If both iMPACT! and Raw were on at roughly the same time in the United Kingdom, I'd consider it to be a ratings war. The fact that Raw airs on a channel in the UK that has to be paid for, airs at 3 am, and often beats TNA iMPACT makes you wonder what sort of numbers Raw might draw if it were on Bravo during Prime Time as iMPACT! is. Whenever iMPACT! beats Raw or vice versa in the UK, it doesn't have quite the same relevance. In the United States, Raw tends to draw between 5 to 5.5 million viewers each week. In the UK, Raw probably draws somewhere around 100,000 viewers on average. If the ratings system in the UK worked along the same lines as they do here in the United States, Neither Raw or iMPACT! would draw the equivalent of a tenth of a point as each tenth of a point in the states equals 149,000 homes. I've said, and others have said before, I'm not saying that ratings=quality because quality is something that is completely subjective. Which company has the best roster, puts on the best matches, has the best creative team, commentators, etc. is all entirely based upon personal opinion. Ratings, however, can't be debated and aren't subject to opinion. The ratings show how successful the product is with its audience. Ratings usually determine which shows stay on the air and which ones don't, so their importance to the overall bottom line is entirely relevant when you have two rival companies putting out a similar product. TNA moved to Mondays and "declared war", on the WWE. Since TNA decided to start a ratings war with the WWE, ratings do play a part in what can be perceived on the surface as a superior product.

 

[Davi323]

Slyfox, how many people do you know that watch TV regularly between midnight and 1am on a saturday night? How many do you know that regularly watch TV between 8pm and 11pm during a weekday? I am going to go out on a limb and state that far more people watch TV during prime time on a week day than at midnight on Saturday. Plus, many of the same people that would watch ECW would also be those who would watch SNL, which is the saturday night ratings king. People had to go out of their way to watch ECW, they don't to watch TNA, and TNA doesn't do any better? Why? Because people have flipped to TNA, saw it was horrible, and changed the channel.

Further, TNA's raings weren't any better when they were on Thursdays, completely unopposed (Superstars doesn't really count)...No RAW to take viewers away. And TNA still couldn't outdraw ECW?

ECW's ratigs were low because of its timeslot, TNA's is low because its crap.

 

[Slyfox696]

Slyfox, how many people do you know that watch TV regularly between midnight and 1am on a saturday night?

Why was ECW in that timeslot? Because they didn't have a good product.

You can't argue that ECW was crap because of their timeslot, because they had that timeslot BECAUSE they were crap. That's what you have to understand.

TV Networks are going to put the shows which will make them money in the best spots. That's why TNA started on Spike at 11 p.m. on Saturday...and as they showed they had the ability to make a difference for Spike, Spike moved them to better and better timeslots, where they are now head to head with Raw.

How many do you know that regularly watch TV between 8pm and 11pm during a weekday?

You can't worry about "people", you can only worry about "wrestling fans". And Saturday night has LONG been a traditional wrestling night for fans of wrestling.

I am going to go out on a limb and state that far more people watch TV during prime time on a week day than at midnight on Saturday.

Then ECW should have put on a better program so TNN would have moved them to a better timeslot.

But when you're barely pulling in 10% of the available wrestling audience, you obviously are not doing well.

People had to go out of their way to watch ECW, they don't to watch TNA, and TNA doesn't do any better? Why? Because people have flipped to TNA, saw it was horrible, and changed the channel.

Except that TNA is controlling 33% of the wrestling audience, while in direct competition with the #1 cable television show.

Not just the #1 wrestling show, the #1 cable television show. And TNA is STILL pulling a higher percentage of viewers than ECW did.

Further, TNA's raings weren't any better when they were on Thursdays, completely unopposed (Superstars doesn't really count)...No RAW to take viewers away. And TNA still couldn't outdraw ECW?

But they are. If the wrestling audience was as large now as it was 10 years ago, you would be right.

But, it isn't, so you're wrong. You can't measure a hard 1.0 rating between TNA and ECW, because they represent totally different time periods and available audiences. Just to use round numbers, if 1000 people were wrestling fans back in 1999, 300 of them are fans now. ECW only had 100 fans out of those 1000, whereas TNA is getting 100 out of 300. And, again, that doesn't begin to count things like the Internet, downloading shows or watching them online, having DVR, the accessibility of spoilers, etc.

ECW's ratigs were low because of its timeslot, TNA's is low because its crap.

Again, you're trying to measure just base numbers, and it just doesn't work that way.

ECW was in its timeslot because it was crap, and wouldn't make the TV network money. TNA has a higher percentage of wrestling fans than ECW ever did.

 

[Davi323]

TNA's timeslot is because Spike TV has a vendetta against the WWE for leaving them to go back to USA...not because TNA is good.

 

[Attitude_Raven]

ratings don't determine which show's better, but it determines which show fits more with the grain of the time.

as much as i love TNAs direction, we have to admit, it's no 99 anymore, ECW, WWF Attitude Era, WCW New Blood are all gone. the edgy, rebellious and risky content is not what society embraces now.
remember back then politically correct George Bush sr. was aready defeated by the hip and cool Bill Clinton and his sex scandals, there was the boom of Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil, shows like South Park, Jerry Springer or Family Guy were high rated, Jean Claude Van Damme's movies were worldwide hits, UFC started to gain ground in the combat sports world and bands/artists such as Korn, Metallica, Rob Zombie, Limp Bizkit, Marilyn Manson and Slipknot were topping the charts.
now those great and crazy years are long gone, after the Janet jackson's superbowl scandal (WTF? she wasn't hot then) censorship started to take note, now everything's more restricted than before, and well, it's like the 80s once again, so WWEs current state perfectly fits on that as they bring you the thypical american slightly-racist babyface (Cena), the racial stereotype heels (Sheamus, Kozlov, Khali, Ezekiel) or jobbers (Kung Funaki -released-, Wang Yang -idem-, Santino, R-Truth-shame for a great talent-) and intelligence insulting gimmicks (Santina, Hornswoogle, Piggie James-hapy that she's free now-...).
and well, about TNa, i'm loving the direction they took under Bischoff's wing, he's a fucking genius, and well, what they need IMO is to keep on going that way, slowly build themselves, take some risks and wait until the next generation of crazy fans surfaces, then TNA will get big raises on their ratings and their wallets.