Who Gives a Rat's Ass About Ratings?

[DangerousDave]

I see many rants and references to TV ratings in the threads of the TNA Forum. TNA's ratings may pale in comparison to WWE's, but they are above average for all of Spike TV's programs. Ratings don't make a product good or bad. Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about the ratings as long as they are good enough to keep the program on TV & I enjoy the wrestling. You can't look at a wrestling website without seeing the ratings for TNA & WWE. Look at any other sports site and you will never find a reference to what the TV ratings were for a certain game. The wrestling community seems to be obsessed with it.

Do you let ratings influence which wrestling programs you watch?

Do you know the ratings for your favorite TV show besides wrestling? Would you even know where to look for them?

If the wrestling web sites stopped giving the ratings do you think more people might tune into TNA to see what it is all about?

 

[Zeven_Zion]

I don't, I never did and I never will. Anyone who does is a moron and that's that. The people who DO give a crap about the ratings, usually do so in order to find negative things to say about TNA or even WWE at times. The same applies for revenue, sales, marketing. Anything that has numbers.

Personally, I think the Internet gave people an insight on such things as ratings, buys and so on, thus making us smarkier. We think we know it all, while infact we don't even know some of it. Ask Michael Barton. BAM!

I judge a show by its quality. If it entertains me - I'll watch it, go on the Internet and piss off a whole lotta people that don't agree with me. I'm just badass like that.

Do you let ratings influence which wrestling programs you watch? HELL no. Still, I'm sure all the TNA fans like me who'll say that they don't care will be the first to pop the champagne if TNA beats WWE in the ratings even for a quarter hour. We're just badass and hypocrtical like that

Do you know the ratings for your favorite TV show besides wrestling? Would you even know where to look for them? That's a very good question. I've no idea. I'm a Smallville mark and I don't know what they're drawing. I'm also not on any other forums, battling over the CSI and Smallville ratings. Hmmm...

If the wrestling web sites stopped giving the ratings do you think more people might tune into TNA to see what it is all about? If the Internet overall stopped spredding wrong rumors about TNA, I believe people wouldn't be turned off by it before they even saw it. Not saying they'll start pulling 5.0's, but it is huting the product, it always has. It's trendy to shit on non-WWE things. You have to admit, TNA fan or non-TNA fan, TNA is not a 1.1 rating product. It has flaws, some people there suck, but show me the company that doesn't have the same problems as TNA and I'll french kiss Mae Young. I could be an ass and blame it on the WWE fans who are so loyal to the 'E that they wouldn't even consider watching something else, and also to the fans who are just being stupid about it and won't watch because of the existence of Bischoff, Hogan and Russo. I can do that. OR, I can be rational and say that if TNA has pretences of being something more than a glorified indy company, they should pluck the notion that they're allowed to make mistakes out of their heads, market the product even more than they do now (I don't know how much they're doing it, but the company isn't growing so I figured it ain't much), try to go Live and tour the country, that always helps, or simply smack a huge John Cena picture at the entrance, wait for a horde of kids to come running into the building, lock the door behind them, wait for Superm-...Cena to come to the save, shoot him between the eyes and enjoy your ratings' growth.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I hear you, Dave, I do, because personally I don't give a flying fuck about ratings, but ratings are the clearest and most concise reading and assessment a production house, television studio, financial partner, etc. can base their fiscal responsibilities on when determining the value of their programming — in that case, wrestling is no different. It's a commodity they sell to the public in the hopes the public purchases it. If their intended audience (or otherwise) is not buying into the programming, the cost efficiency of the program goes into the red and unless the shows producers, writers, etc. are capable of righting the ship, the program will inevitably be cancelled as it will have become a financial burden to continue despite it's lack of a return.

Do I personally care about ratings? No. I rarely even look up the weekly ratings for TNA, frankly, but if they began to bomb out (like they did during the Monday Night Wars II, for example), they become a very real and very important indication of the legitimate value of said programming.

So yes, they don't matter, and yes, they do.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think that IDR pretty much summed up the various factors as to how ratings fit into the overall scenario. After all, if you're a fan of a show, you don't wanna see it cancelled and the size of the audience a show pulls in does affect whether or not a network is interested in keeping it around.

How many viewers a wrestling show draws has no impact on whether or not I watch it. If it did, then I wouldn't bother watching Superstars or iMPACT!. Letting yourself be swayed just going by numbers is the same as basing that Britney Spears is an incredible singer just because she's put out CDs that've sold 10 million copies.

Quality is what determines whether or not I think a wrestling program is good. Quality is something that's always subjective so I don't jump down someone's throat or anything stupid like that just because they might not share the same opinion as me. As long as I'm entertained by what I see, as long as I care about seeing what angles or feuds wrestlers are involved in, as long as I care about listening to a guy cut a promo, then I'm gonna watch it. Might not always like what I see, no matter which company I might be watching, but that's life.

 

[shattered dreams]

The problem lies in the inaccuracy of tying quality directly to ratings. Ratings have some relevance when discussing the business side but what that has to do with personal enjoyment of some form of entertainment I have no idea. Critics seem to want to combine the two when they should each be separate concepts. I also think it is quite easy to look at the entertainment landscape and see that there is an inherent difference between quality and mass appeal. Not always, but certainly often. I have a hard time believing Two and a Half Men is of a higher quality than Arrested Development or that I should be most entertained by American Idol. Mass appeal shouldn't be an argument for anything other than business success and it is not like anyone has ever claimed WWE isn't solid in that aspect while TNA is still a work in progress.

Hopefully people do not change their viewing habits solely because of the acts of others. Then again that sheep reference may have some merit and it seems like insecure people are more likely to go with that mass appeal product for comfort. I know for me it comes down to what entertains me and that is all that matters. Whether everyone else likes it or I am the only one. It certainly seems like one of the perks of being a fan is that you can just watch what you enjoy and not have to worry about all the crap that goes into running a company but around here that isn't usually the case for whatever reason.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

I dont care about the rating of a show....but for wrestling its important...you bring up no cares what the rating are for football, baseball, or basketball games...well thats easy because the NFL doesn't have any competition in football...the MLB doesn't have competition in baseball and the same goes for NBA....Wrestling does in the WWE and TNA...i agree with you that ratings shouldn't matter as to weather or not a person tunes into TNA or WWE....and as far as if the Internet sites stopped posting them would it help...ill say slightly, not enough for TNA to take over WWE in the ratings war but a push.....and to answer the other question of do i know the rating of my favorite shows (Tosh.O, South Park, House, and Ghost Adventures) i have the slightest idea...i mean im sure House has huge ratings?

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Well, I'll use an analogy by Paul Heyman that sums this up nicely.

McDonalds sells the most burgers in the States, correct? Now, burger lovers, throw me a bone here. Does McDonalds sell the BEST burgers in the States? I most certainly think not.

So, like Dreams said, tying ratings to quality is quite wrong. Hypothetically speaking, the product could be better than WWE's and still get lower ratings. I think a lot of people would agree that SmackDown! is a better and more enjoyable show than RAW, yet the ratings are lower.

If ratings mean anything, it's not quality, it's maybe money. That's more accurate I think.

 

[realdealasshole]

I really don't care about ratings. Doesn't matter to me as a fan. Whatever will entertain me the most is what I will watch. That's why I watched TNA for so long. But honestly, since Bischoff and Hogan have come on board, there's been no reason to watch anymore. WWE has the ratings, but that's not why I think it's head and shoulders beyond better than TNA. It's just head and shoulders beyond better than TNA is right now. Far more entertaining, and not as nonsensical and ass backwards. Young guys are being pushed over older guys as opposed to the way it is in TNA. It's sad really, it used to be the other way around.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

I really don't care about ratings. Doesn't matter to me as a fan. Whatever will entertain me the most is what I will watch. That's why I watched TNA for so long. But honestly, since Bischoff and Hogan have come on board, there's been no reason to watch anymore. WWE has the ratings, but that's not why I think it's head and shoulders beyond better than TNA. It's just head and shoulders beyond better than TNA is right now. Far more entertaining, and not as nonsensical and ass backwards. Young guys are being pushed over older guys as opposed to the way it is in TNA. It's sad really, it used to be the other way around.

Correction.

Young guys are not being pushed over old guys. There are no old guys to put them over. Instead, they put a belt on them and shove them down your throat before you had the chance to taste them, and hope for a miracle. That's what they do. Don't believe me? When's the last time Cena or Randy Orton lost cleanly to a young guy? When's the last time Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker or Triple H lost cleanly to a young guy without any bullshit? Answer me that. Young guys are being pushed because there are no more old guys, and they have no choice. WWE spent YEARS of not pushing people until all of their top talent retired or got injured. WWE is not doing it because they smartened up, they're doing it because they have to push someone. Period.

Like I said in another thread, they'll keep pushing them until they face John Cena. Don't believe me? Ask Nexus.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Well I've seen good shows from WWE and TNA that bombed in the ratings, and bad shows that did well in the ratings. I look at the ratings to see how shows are doing, but there really isn't any reason to compare the quality of a show just because the rating dips or increases a point. Raw is usually a 3.0 -3.2, Smackdown a 1.6-2.0, and TNA 1.0 -1.2. Unless the ratings dip drastically, the shows are pretty steady.

I never cared about ratings until the original Monday Night Wars. I think having a ratings war takes away the quality of the wrestling since the promoters are more worried about shock television. The knockouts on TNA may be a "ratings grabber" but the knockouts alone don't sell the merchandise, PPV buys, or wrestling tickets.

People will tune in to see their favorite show, regardless of the ratings. Its quality not quantity.

 

[bullsgo]

"I see many rants and references to TV ratings in the threads of the TNA Forum. TNA's ratings may pale in comparison to WWE's, but they are above
average for all of Spike TV's programs."

That's good news for TNA.

As long as TNA's generating good ratings in Spike terms, their show will be on the air.

That said, 1.0 ratings are fine for Spike TV, but a 1.0 will never get you to the big dance.

"Ratings don't make a product good or bad."

True. Ratings do not equal quality; however, they are a strong indication of whether or not people are willing to invest their time into something.

"If the wrestling web sites stopped giving the ratings do you think more people might tune into TNA to see what it is all about?"

For TNA it's publicity. Sure, the 1.0 rating makes the product look weak when compared to WWE, but at this stage how else can one assess TNA's growth?

TNA doesn't really have a productive house show market, Their pay per views under perform, and they're merchandising can't be generating much revenue.

Until TNA steps up and develops more productive revenue streams, its growth rate will be measured by its ratings.

 

[bringitback]

The wrestling industry is, always has been and always will be judged on it's ability to "put asses in seats". The ability to make money, generate revenue, turn in a profit. It's always been the point of wrestling, so from that perspective, in today's world, then tv ratings are just as important as gate receipts when it comes to judging if they had put asses in seats or not. It's great that what TNA does puts your ass in a seat, and that you enjoy it, so no, what the ratings are won't matter to you. However, TNA's current inability to do that on a larger, more general scale, does matter, as it is what their show is judged on and what their business is judged on.

Also, to those who say that people don't watch TNA because their loyal to WWE, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I've given TNA numerous chances, I genuinely want to enjoy their product and for there to be a choice in what I watch. Unfortunately, TNA doesn't deliver. To be honest, WWE barely delivers, but it does to a greater extent to what TNA is broadcasting.

Just my two cents.

 

[shattered dreams]

Young guys are being pushed over older guys as opposed to the way it is in TNA.

This IWC pedophilia is starting to reach creepy levels. Chris Hansen needs to come clean this place out before this younger generation of WWE fans shows up in mass. I just do not get what the age of the performer has to do with quality. You can make an argument for the young push from a business perspective, although as I have said before I find little evidence that being disproportionally young is the preferred business model for success. Maybe if there was some evidence that ALL the older guys couldn't entertain but I do not know what you have been watching but Undertaker, Michaels, Angle and others have proven this stupid idea full of holes. There is no evidence that simply being young makes you more entertaining than someone who is older, which is why any blanket statements about quality based solely on age are stupid IMO.

 

[Kitten Cutter]

I actually AGREE with shattered dreams! (ugh...) The argument about young guys vs. old guys is really pointless. So what if Cena and Orton never lose cleanly? When's the last time any dominant wrestler lost cleanly? How about Jeff Hardy? How about RVD or Angle? All that matters is the wrestling fans are entertained, and whether it's HHH, Cena, Hogan or Styles, the company will go with the hot hand while slowly building up its NEWER guys (not necessarily younger, just not as established).

The point of the ratings should be important to us, because remember that some shows like Chuck or Arrested Development had to be saved from cancellation due to low ratings. Who and how many people watch is irrelevant to us, yes, because TNA (and in some cases the WWE) already has us watching. We need to be aware that TNA will try new things, anything to get their ratings, because in the end they want to beat the WWE, which Bischoff knows is difficult. To do this, they're going to bring in mainstream stars like J-Woww and The Situation; they're going to push their former WWE guys like Hardy, Anderson and RVD to the moon to try to hook the casual fan; and they're going to do different storylines to keep the casual fans interested, which may or may not fall flat. So, the ratings don't interest us directly, but they will influence the show we're watching in a positive or negative way.

 

[ABMorales787]

Quick question, what does the "young over old and vice versa" debacle have anything to do with this topic about TNA's ratings? Nothing, I know.

Here's a detail people don't seem to notice. Monday stint aside, TNA's ratings haven't changed in the slightest. 1.1's, 1.2's 1.0's. Almost every single week. Monday Night Raw's rating's have also gone through absolutely no changes in terms of average. Always lingering between 3.0 and 3.3. Over the year in Raw we had the return of Bret Hart, The Nexus, the Daniel Bryan odyssey and a plethora of celebrities. In TNA, we had the debuts of Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Jeff Hardy, RVD beyond. We had RVD win the TNA title on live TV, the formation of Immortal, EV2 and beyond. What does that tell us? That both WWE and TNA have been stuck with the same core fanbase since last year and maybe beyond. Do ratings mean something? Should they start going to above average levels, yes. Should we be discussing them and how they drop or increase by one point every single week? No. Should we throw excuses like there was an NFL or NBA game? Given the average, hell no.

Ratings are important. They show when more people pay attention to a program. But to say TNA sucks because it has low ratings? That's dumb. TNA's TV fanbase has been pretty much as firm as WWE's has. Neither company's ratings have overall improved or decreased.

 

[Dave]

I see many rants and references to TV ratings in the threads of the TNA Forum. TNA's ratings may pale in comparison to WWE's, but they are above average for all of Spike TV's programs. Ratings don't make a product good or bad. Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about the ratings as long as they are good enough to keep the program on TV & I enjoy the wrestling. You can't look at a wrestling website without seeing the ratings for TNA & WWE. Look at any other sports site and you will never find a reference to what the TV ratings were for a certain game. The wrestling community seems to be obsessed with it.

Do you let ratings influence which wrestling programs you watch?

Do you know the ratings for your favorite TV show besides wrestling? Would you even know where to look for them?

If the wrestling web sites stopped giving the ratings do you think more people might tune into TNA to see what it is all about?

I do not allow ratings to dictate what shows I watch. Hell, I have even watched shows that I knew were doomed to fail from the start. I watched Family Guy from the very first episode and it died in the ratings when it was first shown. The fact of the matter is that quality is what makes people tune in. If you have something that someone wants to see badly, then they are going to try their best to see it. TNA, to me, has a lack of real quality programming and personally, I think they are trying far too hard. To me, it seems as though they have looked at the past and thought “what was successful in the past?” Unfortunately, they looked at the Attitude Era and saw that being edgy might be the best way to pursue the fans.

They picked up where the WWE left off and didn't realise that wrestling, in general, has moved on quite some way. Now, before you all go slamming me for bashing TNA, I am not saying that they don't have quality. In fact, if the managed to get their shit together, they might do a little better in the ratings. They have quality in Angle, The MCMG and others. However, there seems to be something at play that is making stupid decisions and ultimately costing them my viewer-ship. At the end of the day, quality is what keeps people watching and TNA doesn't know how to best utilize their qualities.

My favourite TV show is Family Guy and I know that they have been pulling in around 7.5 milion viewers an episode in the last season. If you want the ratings, then Google is your friend. Ratings mean an awful lot to the networks and that is why so many shows fail. If people aren't watching, then there is no need to keep showing it. It would make lousy financial sense to keep broadcasting something that a minority of people wanted to see. That is a financial blackhole waiting to happen, in my estimation.

As I said though, ratings do mean a lot, like it or not. Better shows than TNA have been cancelled because of their ratings (Read: Arrested Development) and TNA should always be cautious of that fact. Ratings are what they are out to achieve and without them, it may be a dying game.

 

[shattered dreams]

How does the family guy saga not prove that quality doesn't equal ratings? Now personally I think Family Guy is one of the most overrated things ever but that is a different thread. Family guy failed and then came back when people actually found out about it. Nothing changed about those episodes, so the quality was the same, but later they started selling. Attracting an audience is obviously more complicated than quality. Why exactly do the summer blockbusters do huge money but rarely come up at the Oscars? Ratings are effected by marketing, exposure etc. and the trick is getting the people to commit to the habit of viewing regularly.

 

[gd]

Ratings are one of the most overrated things in the IWC. Sure, the actual company should care about the ratings since they have a direct effect on them, but like someone said, unless the ratings go so low that a show gets pulled, it really doesn't matter. As a fan, whether you personally are entertained should be the only thing that matters. That is something that is overlooked much of the time.

The only thing ratings are really useful for is in making arguments and whatnot, which really floats some peoples' boats.

 

[Djm]

I find the analyzation of every quarter-hour of a show being used as talking points for a person's favorite wrestler or wrestlers they don't like to be kind of silly.

That said, I don't want wrestling to be taken off the air. TNA is still one of the highest rated shows on Spike TV, so they don't have any reason to cancel them, simply because they aren't re-igniting a wrestling war that's never coming back, anyway.

 

[Dave]

How does the family guy saga not prove that quality doesn't equal ratings? Now personally I think Family Guy is one of the most overrated things ever but that is a different thread. Family guy failed and then came back when people actually found out about it. Nothing changed about those episodes, so the quality was the same, but later they started selling. Attracting an audience is obviously more complicated than quality. Why exactly do the summer blockbusters do huge money but rarely come up at the Oscars? Ratings are effected by marketing, exposure etc. and the trick is getting the people to commit to the habit of viewing regularly.

Whilst you might have a point with the idea that ratings are affected by marketing and advertising, my point still stands. Ratings are what defines a show. Without people watching the show, who is going to take a chance on exposing it to a wider audience? Who is going to throw money at a brick wall, hoping that something sticks. That may be the mentality of some parts of TNA but network executives must be a little more intelligent than that.

It is a vicious circle that really helps no one. TNA are not giving people what they want to see, for one reason or another, and thus people are not watching it regularly. The network sees this and think that it may be a waste of money to try and bring people into the fold with costly advertising, especially when they may not stick around for long enough if they do start watching at all. So TNA do not get the exposure because they do not have the viewers to warrant any sort of costly advertising and they cannot progress, in terms of audience numbers, without it. It is a terrible way of doing things but no network is going to reward TNA with more exposure when it cannot seem to keep the viewers it gets.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

The Ratings are not that important to me as a fan, it as now affect on whether or not I watch or I'm entertained. The only I would care about them is if that they start to go under 1.0 and stay there consistently. As long Spike is happy with TNA since Impact gets the highest or second highest ratings for Spike TV then there's noting to worry about.

 

[shattered dreams]

TNA clearly has a regular audience and their "problem" is expanding on it. That audience isn't even all that small all things considered. Why exactly is it such a problem to be the highest rated show on spike anyway? What the dirtsheets in their infinite wisdom cite anonymous money issues? If you are on that bandwagon I have some magic beans for you, check my blog for the evidence they work. I look at the current situation as relates to growth not like a problem, but it seems more like a goal. TNA would like to grow but the idea that their current makeup is some huge problem is an IWC exaggeration based on foolish comparisons directly to WWE. People want to justify their own opinions so they turn to ratings as directly comparable to quality.

IMO it really comes down to how people view the two companies. They watch WWE out of habit as a fan, but TNA hasn't built of that rapport with the audience yet, so they watch as a critic and for some odd reason focus on business elements the whole time instead of just enjoying the program for what it is. No one is trying to dispute that ratings matter from a business perspective anyway. Since when did people start watching in mass entertainment varieties of tv to worry about the business behind the program? Clearly they do not so such stuff should be irrelevant when it comes to personally why someone will watch. Even if success leads to more marketing or exposure, it still doesn't change the existing quality, just some peoples perceptions.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

If a person does have a look at the ratings of the show before actually watching the show, I do agree that the ratings might actually prejudice a person's view towards that show. But the question is, how many people actually do that? Ratings are not something that is on the minds of the average guy. Ratings of the show are something that a person takes a look at long after they have started watching the show.

Whether the rating of a show is an actual measure of its quality, I would say no. A good example of this would be Supernatural. I feel that it is a very good show and something that I tune into whenever I can but it does not exactly have very high ratings. The show is generally watched by teenage girls due to the fact that the lead protagonists are good looking. But even content wise I would say that the show is pretty good and certainly deserves to be viewed by more people.

As for TNA, I would say that what is more troubling for me is the quarter hour ratings breakdown. The rating of the last quarter hour of the show is generally the worst of all the quarter hours. Granted TNA has a niche audience but it seems that seeing the quality of the show even the devoted TNA audience turns away from the show as it progresses. The logical explanation would be that it is the quality of the show that forces them to turn away from the show. Now that to me is a troubling thought.

 

[ABMorales787]

Whilst you might have a point with the idea that ratings are affected by marketing and advertising, my point still stands. Ratings are what defines a show. Without people watching the show, who is going to take a chance on exposing it to a wider audience? Who is going to throw money at a brick wall, hoping that something sticks. That may be the mentality of some parts of TNA but network executives must be a little more intelligent than that.

It is a vicious circle that really helps no one. TNA are not giving people what they want to see, for one reason or another, and thus people are not watching it regularly. The network sees this and think that it may be a waste of money to try and bring people into the fold with costly advertising, especially when they may not stick around for long enough if they do start watching at all. So TNA do not get the exposure because they do not have the viewers to warrant any sort of costly advertising and they cannot progress, in terms of audience numbers, without it. It is a terrible way of doing things but no network is going to reward TNA with more exposure when it cannot seem to keep the viewers it gets.

Well Dave, you are kinda missing one crucial detail in your analysis. TNA Impact is one of the highest rated shows on Spike TV. If Impact is feeling any ill effect from the network, I'd really hate to know what 1000 Ways To Die or MANwsers are getting. Yes rating do have it's effect on the show because that's why the stint on Mondays was cut short. But think you may be exaggerating the ratings thing by saying they are failing now. Like I pointed out in my previous post, there has been no progression ratings-wise on the show. But at the same time so have Raw's. Raw's overall quality has increased in general opinion, but the ratings don't reflex a single change. Meanwhile TNA has gone through every single little trick in the book and they too are stuck with the same core fan-base. At the end of the day it's obvious what the problem is. It's not lack of quality or lack of star power. Pro Wrestling is simply stuck with it's core fan-base and simply has not grabbed any new viewers (in mass) in well over a year. Pro wrestling, not just TNA or WWE, but as a whole, is stale. You can bat around with the idea that TNA's ratings are low, but in Spike TV's standards they are high, and on rating's eyes, it's the same it was last year

 

[LSN80]

Ratings don't make a TV show good or bad, certainly, but they are a reflection on the product in many ways, and what its broadcast partner decides in terms of what to do with said product. This doesn't apply strictly to wrestling, the same criteria is used for your favorite TV sitcom in determining whether or not that show will continue to air. Ratings show cost efficiency and value(or lack thereof) to the parent network and is used as the biggest criteria in determining whether the financial investment used in airing the show is validated.

Personally, I dont care, and I think most people feel the same way. Despite bearing little resemblance to the WWE product, I know several people who watch TNA regularly, yet believe they're another "brand" under the WWE banner. I don't think the wrestling community is obsessed with it in terms of whether or not they'll continue to watch, but rather in terms of concern for the product itself.

As for me, I watch for an audience of one. If I feel I'm watching something of value, I could care less what rating the show does. I don't know the ratings for my favorite TV shows, despite knowing they would be easy to find. I don't believe that "ratings" affect the number of people that tune in to watch wrestling, as the IWC makes up just a small portion of the number of people who watch wrestling now. I think people tune in to watch what they feel is a quality product, and will stop tuning in if they watch even a product that draws the highest ratings if it isn't their cup of tea. I buy music, see movies, and play video games that are of personal interest to me, regardless of what the critical masses have to say in terms of "product sold". When you break it down, "product sold" is really all ratings are about, just under a different set of criteria.