Who Gives a Rat's Ass About Ratings?

[Rayne]

Who gives a fuck about ratings? All they do is tell you how many people are watching your product, which tells you exactly how interesting you are relative to everyone else. The Hulk + Eric Show's ratings aren't a reason to dislike the company; they are information supporting the opinion that The Hulk + Eric Show is not a very popular program. I don't avoid The Hulk + Eric Show because it has poor ratings; I avoid The Hulk + Eric Show because I found it insulted my intelligence as a viewer, and the similar opinions of millions of wrestling fans aware of its existence lead TO it having low ratings.

So who gives a rat's ass about ratings? Advertisers, network executives, H+E Show management, television critics, and anyone else with an interest in gauging the audience interest of one program over another. As far as gauging that, there is no better metric available.

People never watch television because it got an X in the Nielsen Ratings. They tune in for a show because they've heard a lot about it, whether it's commercial advertising or social advertising. They continue watching it because they enjoy it, or, in H+E Show's case, they show up for a special event and then don't watch again.

 

[shattered dreams]

Rayne, it is fine when it is just your opinion but as soon as you start putting words in millions of peoples' mouths and making assumptions about what they know, or do, you miss the point. Raw probably averages about 5 million viewers a show while smackdown does maybe half of that. Am I suppose to believe that smackdown insults the intelligence of millions of wrestling fans? Is there really a huge difference between the quality of the two programs?

 

[Rayne]

Rayne, it is fine when it is just your opinion but as soon as you start putting words in millions of peoples' mouths and making assumptions about what they know, or do, you miss the point. Raw probably averages about 5 million viewers a show while smackdown does maybe half of that. Am I suppose to believe that smackdown insults the intelligence of millions of wrestling fans? Is there really a huge difference between the quality of the two programs?

I never claimed to speak for the entirety of fans who are uninterested in The Hulk + Eric Show. The opinion that The Hulk + Eric Show insults the intelligence of their viewers has been posted several times before on these forums, by several different people. Similar opinions might be "it just didn't interest me that much", or "I already watched WCW once"; they don't necessarily have to exactly be my opinion. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I resisted your softball earlier last week about The H+E Show's problem being a lack of exposure. It's not. Wrestling fans know that The Hulk + Eric Show exists now, they just aren't tuning in to watch it. Stints on The Family Feud and Jeff Hardy looking vacant and stoned on daytime television are creating audience awareness of the product, but that awareness is not translating into interest.

As far as your Smackdown argument goes, you work under the assumption that if one show isn't doing as well as an arbitrary benchmark, then it must be insulting the intelligence of the viewer. Not only is that an argument I didn't make even in reference to The Hulk + Eric Show (I only compare them to their own benchmarks, which are by no means arbitrary), not only is it an argument that lacks any coherent logic drawing a case which starts at one point and ends at another, it also ignores the fact that shows do better or worse for a variety of different reasons; like being stuck on a channel that most of your viewers don't even know how to find. (I would like to know what kind of leverage NBC put on the WWE to bury their programming on SyFy, because I can all but guarantee there wasn't a soul in Stamford who was enthusiastic about that idea. Who in their right mind would be?)

 

[shattered dreams]

I avoid The Hulk + Eric Show because I found it insulted my intelligence as a viewer, and the similar opinions of millions of wrestling fans aware of its existence lead TO it having low ratings.

I never claimed to speak for the entirety of fans who are uninterested in The Hulk + Eric Show. The opinion that The Hulk + Eric Show insults the intelligence of their viewers has been posted several times before on these forums, by several different people. Similar opinions might be "it just didn't interest me that much", or "I already watched WCW once"; they don't necessarily have to exactly be my opinion. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please do not say words and then claim you didn't. There is a big difference between millions and several. Why anyone thinks 5-50 people agreeing with an idea in the IWC means anything in the mainstream has always been confusing to me anyway.

I resisted your softball earlier last week about The H+E Show's problem being a lack of exposure. It's not. Wrestling fans know that The Hulk + Eric Show exists now, they just aren't tuning in to watch it. Stints on The Family Feud and Jeff Hardy looking vacant and stoned on daytime television are creating audience awareness of the product, but that awareness is not translating into interest.

I do not think you read what I said about exposure. It is hard to grow just on current wrestling fans but not impossible. I was talking about marketing on a week to week basis that lets the wrestling audience know about what good stuff TNA has happening that week, reminding them when and where it is etc. Also for the non-wrestling audience TNA is nowhere near as mainstream as WWE. Essentially, there is a difference between knowing something exists and week to week exposure.

As far as your Smackdown argument goes, you work under the assumption that if one show isn't doing as well as an arbitrary benchmark, then it must be insulting the intelligence of the viewer. Not only is that an argument I didn't make even in reference to The Hulk + Eric Show (I only compare them to their own benchmarks, which are by no means arbitrary),

I pointed that out as a byproduct of what you were saying and made it obvious I did not think it was a good way to look at the situation. What is their own benchmark that they are doing so horribly against? How is the same horrible?

not only is it an argument that lacks any coherent logic drawing a case which starts at one point and ends at another, it also ignores the fact that shows do better or worse for a variety of different reasons; like being stuck on a channel that most of your viewers don't even know how to find. (I would like to know what kind of leverage NBC put on the WWE to bury their programming on SyFy, because I can all but guarantee there wasn't a soul in Stamford who was enthusiastic about that idea. Who in their right mind would be?)

Yet your original assertion that TNA had low ratings because of one factor was misguided in this same way, which is why I made the analogy to begin with.

 

[Rayne]

Please do not say words and then claim you didn't. There is a big difference between millions and several. Why anyone thinks 5-50 people agreeing with an idea in the IWC means anything in the mainstream has always been confusing to me anyway.

Yes, and there is a big difference between "similar" and "exactly". Play Mr. Semantic Cop though, that's always a tried and true way to prove your point in a debate. So is claiming that the 'mainstream' (whatever that means) has a different opinion than a sample size with nothing to support it; the old "they can't speak, so I'll speak for them" tactic.

Don't get into a meta-argument about debate with me. Not only is it drifting away from the topic at hand, you don't stand a chance in one.

I do not think you read what I said about exposure. It is hard to grow just on current wrestling fans but not impossible. I was talking about marketing on a week to week basis that lets the wrestling audience know about what good stuff TNA has happening that week, reminding them when and where it is etc. Also for the non-wrestling audience TNA is nowhere near as mainstream as WWE. Essentially, there is a difference between knowing something exists and week to week exposure.

Marketing on a week-to-week basis that lets the audience know about what good stuff TNA has happening that week, reminding them when and where it is. You mean like television commercials, guest appearances on talk/game shows and web advertising, including new media like Facebook and Twitter? *blink*

I read what you said. You didn't understand TNA's marketing profile then, and you don't now.

I pointed that out as a byproduct of what you were saying and made it obvious I did not think it was a good way to look at the situation. What is their own benchmark that they are doing so horribly against? How is the same horrible?

You're looking at one metric, ratings, which independent of revenue spent isn't very meaningful. A show that costs $4 million per season to produce but gets a 3.0 is better than a show that costs $40 million per season but gets a 5.0. Undoubtedly TNA is spending more this year than last year. The update to an HD set alone would boost that, and that's before we start talking about all the talent they've hired, their increased amounts of advertising (which has failed to pay for itself by increasing ratings- higher ratings mean companies pay more to advertise on your show, giving your company a bigger cut) as well as the costs of increased international exposure.

A show that gets the same ratings but is spending more money to do it is not in the "same" place.

Yet your original assertion that TNA had low ratings because of one factor was misguided in this same way, which is why I made the analogy to begin with.

If that's what I said, I suppose I could be held blameful, but not only are you picking at straws for argument points here, you're wrong in how you chose to interpret what I wrote. Since it's not what I said, I don't feel guity over your incoherent analogy.

To sum up again: Ratings matter. They aren't a reason to watch a show, but they are a reflection in how much interest your product is generating. The Hulk + Eric Show generates the same interest levels as TNA 2009, while spending more money to do it. Therefore, from a business perspective- which is what we're using ratings for in the first place- The Hulk + Eric Show is in a worse place then the same company was in last year.

 

[shattered dreams]

Yes, and there is a big difference between "similar" and "exactly". Play Mr. Semantic Cop though, that's always a tried and true way to prove your point in a debate. So is claiming that the 'mainstream' (whatever that means) has a different opinion than a sample size with nothing to support it; the old "they can't speak, so I'll speak for them" tactic.

If your meta-genius believes similar can mean entirely different then I do not know what to tell you. Why is the burden of proof on me? I said nothing about what millions of people believe. You did. I simply said you do not know what these people think and "speaking" for them is wrong. I think you need to google selection bias if you think this messageboard is a representative sample of everybody. In the IWC many of the most vocal critics still watch impact for whatever reason anyway.

Marketing on a week-to-week basis that lets the audience know about what good stuff TNA has happening that week, reminding them when and where it is. You mean like television commercials, guest appearances on talk/game shows and web advertising, including new media like Facebook and Twitter? *blink*

Do you really think that the TNA advertising presence is the same as WWE? You act like one game show appearance and one talk show quick segment is some pervasive thing. It isn't. As far as television commercials I do not know what you are seeing but other than 1/4 and BFG I haven't really seen much of anything, especially when it comes to spreading it around. TNA does a good job of advertising in the new media to the people that already watch but as far as expanding they are not there yet in the least. Selling the show on a weekly basis to the more casual fans is a weakness presently. Not sure how steps in the right direction recently are a con instead of a pro anyway though.

You're looking at one metric, ratings, which independent of revenue spent isn't very meaningful. A show that costs $4 million per season to produce but gets a 3.0 is better than a show that costs $40 million per season but gets a 5.0. Undoubtedly TNA is spending more this year than last year. The update to an HD set alone would boost that, and that's before we start talking about all the talent they've hired, their increased amounts of advertising (which has failed to pay for itself by increasing ratings- higher ratings mean companies pay more to advertise on your show, giving your company a bigger cut) as well as the costs of increased international exposure.

When it comes to what has paid for itself you are looking at one metric ratings in the US for one show, which is hardly the whole story. You ignore money from reaction, merchandising and income related to those increases in foreign markets among other things. You also have no idea just how much more they are paying for talent this year. It might not be as significant as people like to believe as they have also quit paying several talents this year and Spike usually has a stake in the bigger deals. This idea that TNA is doing horrible has no basis when taking a comprehensive look at everything. It is certainly ambiguous but obvious bad is something that there is no existing information to prove. TNA likely spent more this year but they also likely made more. How that ended up balancing out last year opposed to this year no one in the IWC knows.

There just is not factual basis for saying that the reason TNA does lower ratings in this "wrestling audience," by which I assume you mean raw audience, is mainly due to quality aspects opposed to some of the other things we have been discussing.

 

[Rayne]

Why do you keep talking about WWE? I'm not bringing them up; not even in comparison. I don't know why you're quoting me as talking about "this wrestling audience", since you were the one to bring that up, and I never even used the phrase.

As far as advertising goes, their weekly ad, which runs on Viacom cable properties including Comedy Central and Spike, consists of a brief one-to-two sentence recap of the past week's events in TNA, with a teaser line about the upcoming episode of Impact. It's been running all year.

It's keen and trendy to say "you don't have all the information, so you can't KNOW anything!" Eric Bischoff said it to that radio host, and it was LOL awesome, right? No, I can't KNOW everything. I can make a reasonable guess that Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff cost more to the company then Christopher Daniels. We call making an educated guess based on available information a "supposition". I don't KNOW the numbers exactly, but I can promise you that Reaction- and let me present this to you from an advertisers perspective, a late-night cable show that maintains half of the audience that's been watching the same programming already for two hours- is not making up itself for the cost of Jeff Hardy, RVD, Hulk + Eric, Ric Flair, and everyone else signed over the past year that needs a paycheck. Merchandising follows ratings, so, unless The Hulk + Eric Show is the extremely rare exception in sports and television (they aren't), there isn't some sudden influx of money from that.

I don't KNOW, you're right. But I'm smart enough to break down a picture into its component parts without harping that since I don't know everything, I can't know anything.

 

[LitasRevenge79]

I tend to agree with not paying attention to ratings. I, for one, am not the biggest fan of ratings. To me, it is a group of over-paid people to judge what they consider 'entertainment' for an average age demographic. When I feel it should be "You work with what you have, and the crowd will come back." To me, TNA is still on the air, and doing much better than what the original naysayers originally gave them credit for. It was a little rag-tag company in a small 'asylum' that wasn't given more than 6 months at the most. Now look at the years later. Still, one other company, but that's the nature of the beast, competition. Every company is going to have die-hard fans that prefer one over the other and no matter how hard you try to sway that person, you won't. I, for one, am just a fan of wrestling period. The ratings is more for the business end, I'm more in this for the entertainment, when you start getting mixed up in the business side of the 'budgets' and the 'buy-rates' then it starts to get harder to enjoy everything. Call me old fashioned, but I'd like to keep some of the mystery and just have fun and not care on whether or not this certain PPV made enough in ratings to be back for another year. Even if they didn't, I'm sure the company will find some other outlet to try to make up for the loss. When people become SO stuck on "One company trying to out-do the other" then it stops being fun, at least in my opinion. I just want to watch wrestling, I don't care who's company it is, don't care the storyline, the rating, just give me entertainment is all.

 

[shattered dreams]

I don't know why you're quoting me as talking about "this wrestling audience", since you were the one to bring that up, and I never even used the phrase.

From your OP: and the similar opinions of millions of wrestling fans aware of its existence lead TO it having low ratings.

From your first follow up: Wrestling fans know that The Hulk + Eric Show exists now

I bring up WWE because otherwise I do not know where you think these millions of wrestling fans are that are passing on TNA exist.

As far as advertising goes, their weekly ad, which runs on Viacom cable properties including Comedy Central and Spike, consists of a brief one-to-two sentence recap of the past week's events in TNA, with a teaser line about the upcoming episode of Impact. It's been running all year.

Do you really think all these wrestling fans that you keep talking about skipping TNA know the selling points of the upcoming show each week? I do not. One set of ads that run for only viacom is hardly pervasive. I do not watch much viacom because I do not get it in HD and as a supposed TNA mark didn't even know about these ads until now. If I do not even know some weeks how can the casual fan possibly know?

It's keen and trendy to say "you don't have all the information, so you can't KNOW anything!" Eric Bischoff said it to that radio host, and it was LOL awesome, right? No, I can't KNOW everything. I can make a reasonable guess that Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff cost more to the company then Christopher Daniels. We call making an educated guess based on available information a "supposition". I don't KNOW the numbers exactly, but I can promise you that Reaction- and let me present this to you from an advertisers perspective, a late-night cable show that maintains half of the audience that's been watching the same programming already for two hours- is not making up itself for the cost of Jeff Hardy, RVD, Hulk + Eric, Ric Flair, and everyone else signed over the past year that needs a paycheck. Merchandising follows ratings, so, unless The Hulk + Eric Show is the extremely rare exception in sports and television (they aren't), there isn't some sudden influx of money from that.

I don't KNOW, you're right. But I'm smart enough to break down a picture into its component parts without harping that since I don't know everything, I can't know anything.

Not sure how this is "trendy" now. Many of us have been saying this for a while now.

You are so smart except you cannot provide one specific number and routinely leave out significant chunks of the picture. I agree there is enough information to suggest they have spent more this year. How much? Much harder to say than you are making it out to be. What about Steiner, Lashley and Booker T being off the books? Sting and Nash appear to be off the books right now. That isn't insignificant money that they could distribute to the new people. Do you really think Hulk and Eric and being paid solely by TNA?

So the fact that TNA merchandise was barely ever even marketed before Bischoff came in has no effect? The fact that they had many new wrestlers debut which seems to correlate to sales like in sports when someone gets drafted or signs to a new team if you are keen on analogies. The fact that Hardy and Anderson are prevalent on the bestsellers list this year, Hogan was noticeable as well. I am sure none of this signals any bump in merchandise just because the rating in the US is the same. Still not sure why the US rating is the only place they can make money anyway. No one buys stuff or watches in other markets? Many of the people TNA brought in are worldwide names in wrestling circles or just in general.

And we still have no idea what comes from PPV. I know what the dirtsheets like to say but for instance do you think BFG this year did less buys than last year? I know I do not. What about house shows? They had a few of their largest crowds ever this year. There are just too many of these things you are ignoring and really too many of them in general to get a coherent analysis out of pure speculation.

Probably most importantly we do not even know what the benchmark was last year. If they were making money last year this idea that the company is in terrible shape becomes even harder to prove. They tried some stuff and it hasn't all worked out but the goal isn't to stay the same the cheapest, it is to expand. If they really did lose viewers like the IWC likes to say, yet the ratings are still the same, then they did attract some new viewers this year. Maybe these people are more mainstream while the ones that quit on her wanted the indy type company. That could be progress but then again it is total speculation and I do not try and pass off my speculation as fact like you have been here.

 

[Rayne]

Do you really think all these wrestling fans that you keep talking about skipping TNA know the selling points of the upcoming show each week? I do not. One set of ads that run for only viacom is hardly pervasive. I do not watch much viacom because I do not get it in HD and as a supposed TNA mark didn't even know about these ads until now. If I do not even know some weeks how can the casual fan possibly know?

Jesus H. Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Viacom

Viacom. The fourth-largest media conglomerate in the country, behind Walt Disney, Time Warner, and News Corp. You watch plenty of Viacom, you just have no idea about it. See, it's shit like this that makes me realize it's pointless about talking issues like advertising vs. expense, ratings and their relationship to the audience, and marketing strategy with you.

I didn't even read the rest of your post after I hit that. That is the single dumbest thing I have ever read on these boards (and I stopped to think about that, I'm not exaggerating.) I'm going for a CAT scan today because I believe you may have just caused me a fucking brain tumor.

 

[shattered dreams]

Actually the single dumbest thing I have read ... wasn't your post (there are some idiots on here), however, it is certainly up there on the list because how the fuck do you know what I watch? Also, you do realize media conglomerate does not mean only tv networks, right? I know which networks they own (OMG I know how to use wikipedia too) and that is why I know I do not watch them. Which is why I remember the one time I saw a TNA commercial not on spike and the one time I saw an impact commercial on spike not during impact. You can dodge the debate if you want but please find a better reason than you are stalking me and cannot accurately distinguish between tv channels.

I think it is funny that you believe you know it all and I am just making this stuff up. I repeat, Do you really think all these wrestling fans that you keep talking about skipping TNA know the selling points of the upcoming show each week? If you do then your "information" runs contrary to what I have heard both Dixie and Bischoff discuss multiple times based on actual real focus groups and research. But I am sure you know how stupid they are and what they did better than they do. If only they had your powers of speculation.

BTW I do think that CAT scan is a good idea but for a slightly different reason than you.

 

[Rayne]

Actually the single dumbest thing I have read ... wasn't your post (there are some idiots on here), however, it is certainly up there on the list because how the fuck do you know what I watch? Also, you do realize media conglomerate does not mean only tv networks, right? I know which networks they own (OMG I know how to use wikipedia too) and that is why I know I do not watch them. Which is why I remember the one time I saw a TNA commercial not on spike and the one time I saw an impact commercial on spike not during impact. You can dodge the debate if you want but please find a better reason than you are stalking me and cannot accurately distinguish between tv channels.

There is no debate. You were just referring to not watching Viacom because "I don't get it in HD", like Viacom was a channel. (Almost all of Viacom's television stations are in HD, and part of standard cable network HD packages. I only say almost because I am not personally aware of any that aren't. Somehow, I have a hunch that we're about to hear how you're the rare exception.)

You keep bringing this off into weird tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of how ratings matter to a company (OMG, he said "similar" but I KNOW he meant "exactly"!) The debate's been over for a while, because you absolutely refuse to examine your favorite company objectively, instead relying on such canards as "executives in media companies never lie or stretch the truth about their media profile, so we have to trust them". If there's one thing Eric Bischoff has been known for over the past 20 years, it's his unshakable honesty.

How can I debate you? You don't understand half of the terms or know the major players that would be required knowledge for this kind of debate. All we can do is argue back and forth, while you repeatedly fall back to various forms of "well you don't know for SURE, so you can't KNOW and therefore my argument should be believed." The Hulk + Eric Show encourages that. God only knows how many times in the past year Eric Bischoff talked down to people for discussing TNA's health, but he's awfully evasive when it comes to offering any information to contradict those opinions. But, of course, it's a private company, and we can't be SURE they don't have good reasons for publishing their media results to attract bigger investors and advertisers, so we can't KNOW, right?

Call it dodging debate if you want; I think of it as getting out because stupid may be contagious and I don't want to spread any when I go home for the holidays. If you want to talk about 'stalking' though, I'll remind you that you were the person who first responded to my post in this thread. As well as the last time we had a discussion, when I suggested that the Anderson concussion was a work. You might want to re-examine that narcissistic little world view there, 'lil champ.

 

[shattered dreams]

"well you don't know for SURE, so you can't KNOW and therefore my argument should be believed."

The trite stuff isn't worth discussing further as you repeatedly show yourself to have little grasp of anything we are discussing beyond calling me an idiot for things I can easily prove you are misinterpreting at best. I did want to address this one thing you said here. I am saying neither of us know for sure and thus such speculation cannot be the basis for an argument. I am not saying I should be believed for anything other than it is clear that we do not know. I also think it is clear that speculation is going to be flawed because the issue is too complex to get a clear intuitive picture of the business state of TNA. You are the one using things that you admit cannot be known for sure as the crux of your argument. It only seems obvious to me that your argument cannot be sure as a whole under those circumstances. That is all I am pointing out. When I press you to explain some of what your speculation is missing you dodge the questions and just say I am a dumb to pretend you are still right. Maybe I am an idiot but if you cannot answer the questions of a simpleton who knows nothing why should we believe your argument?

Ratings matter from a business perspective. That was said by many, including myself, before you even contributed to the thread. What you have failed to explain is why millions of wrestling fans are not watching TNA for reasons similar to quality concerns opposed to the many other reasons you say wrestling fans may not view smackdown that have nothing to do with quality. You have also failed to fill in the holes in your assertion that TNA is doing so bad financially. I do find it amusing you are saying it is cool condescendingly to "repeat" what Bischoff said while ignoring that you are basically "repeating" dirtsheet and IWC collective wisdom.

 

[McGillicutty]

TNAs mediocre ratings could be explained a few ways

TNA doesn't really advertise enough

Perhaps people are just stupid and don't see TNA for how good it really is (Its certainly better than the higher rated Smackdown)

Maybe alot of people saw how suckish TNA was at some previous point and left it for dead? I personally though kept having hope in it and checking back on it till finally the shit turned cool after bound for glory this year

Maybe alot of people don't even get Spike on their TV? Idk

 

[Melina]

As a fan, I really do care about Ratings.

However, Ratings are rarely an indicator of quality. Look at TNA's shows. Many of the best I remember within the last year and a half scored below average ratings. Heck, I believe ratings went down for the Whole F'n Show which was probably TNA's best Impact of the year IMO.

On many shows, the top rated segment is a Knockout's Segment. Yes they are entertaining, and are a decent change of pace, but its concerning as a fan that they lean on the Knockouts to hold Viewers.

Often times TNA puts on at least a decent Main Event, which is the hook used to Draw Viewers in, but instead, they leave. Their fans will watch two girls put on a mediocre match at best, or a pointless promo from someone 10 years removed from his prime, instead of the advertised Main Attraction.

Subjectively, I want a show to be awesome on its own, and nothing else really matters. Objectively, I want the show to accomplish both (be awesome and Draw), even if it is partially at the expense of my Viewing experience. As a fan of Wrestling, and the Company. Draw=Ratings/Attendance which equals hype. A really hyped large crowd has an effect on my viewing experience, something TNA lacks big time.

Does it influence what I watch? Yes/No. I have a few friends that are casual wrestling fans, and really only watch WWE, so if they are around, I am not going to start watching ROH or TNA. That being said, I eventually do catch the show one way or the other.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

If you like what shows you watch ratings are EXTREMELY important. But they should never dictate what you find good or bad. Some great shows have had mediocre ratings and have been canceled while crap show got great ratings and were on for years.

Now we have no clue what the agreement between SPIKE and TNA was. If SPIKE is expecting increased ratings TNA may be in a bit of trouble even if it is one of the highest rated shows on SPIKE.

Rayne, it is fine when it is just your opinion but as soon as you start putting words in millions of peoples' mouths and making assumptions about what they know, or do, you miss the point.

The problem with what you say here is that in your post before this one you speak for millions when you said..."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."

If you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others. Maybe just maybe people do watch TNA and want to like it but can't because they think it's shit.

 

[shattered dreams]

The problem with what you say here is that in your post before this one you speak for millions when you said..."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."

If you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others. Maybe just maybe people do watch TNA and want to like it but can't because they think it's shit.

Fair point, however, the sentence before that makes it clear I am talking about how people watch not necessarily why and that it isn't a blanket statement. I am sure some or many do not watch TNA because they do not like its quality but insinuating everyone doesn't for that reason is a joke. What Rayne was saying was about a theoretical audience. It is certainly ambiguous what makes people who do not watch a show not watch it. It is a lot easier to generalize SOME of the reasons that people do watch a show and speculate about some of the human psychology associated with that. There is a reason most shows talk about hooking people or getting an established audience. Habit is a known big part of why people keep coming back and watching a show. Once it becomes a habit and you dedicate significant time to something the tendency is to defend that commitment. When you are viewing a show that hasn't earned your commitment yet it doesn't get that benefit of the doubt. That does not mean that quality wise it is any worse than what you are viewing on another show in the present though. This is what I was getting at with that comment. Feel free to disagree, it is just a theory.

 

[schaeffershawn]

I would guess that the network and the advertisers care about a programs ratings. As a fan I watch what I enjoy, but as others have pointed out ratings are the best way to meaure the popularity of the product. That does not mean quality of said product.

For example one of my favorite shows for a long time was Scrubs now Scrubs did at best average ratings but had a devoted following no matter how poorly it was advertised or how often it was moved including multiple time slots and two networks, Additionaly because it had low production cost it was kept on for 9 years.

However, in the 9th season ratings were so low they ended the show. Now Scrubs was pulling roughly the same number of people per week as Smackdown se to on UPN/CW. So yes after a time Spike may decide they do not wish to pay TNA as much per episode of Impact. This is exactly what happened a few years ago when Raw left Spike to go back to USA. Raw was Spikes highest rated program by a much large number the Impact has ever done, yet Spike wanted to pay less, so it is concievable for Spike to do teh same thing to Impact despite it being their number one show.

As to who keeps track of ratings. The simpelest place to find them is wikipedia. Above that however, ESPN and the NFL as well as many othere professional sports release their numbers. In particular ESPN will mention lately when the NFL scores a record rating. This has happened multiple times this season.