The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[PeterHilton]

Another problem, as a guy who DVR's TNA and watches Raw live while flipping to spike during commercials.

 

Why, for the love of god, is TNA on a commercial break nearly every time WWE is?

 

 

The number, length, and timing of commercial breaks is usually set up by the network.

[TommyDreamerFan]

The number, length, and timing of commercial breaks is usually set up by the network.

 

Hey lets just be happy they're getting out of the habit of putting the breaks during the mainevent.

[Slagaholic]

Another problem, as a guy who DVR's TNA and watches Raw live while flipping to spike during commercials.

 

Why, for the love of god, is TNA on a commercial break nearly every time WWE is?

 

Because you already have DVR, the networks have to do something to justify the money they charge for ads.

[PeterHilton]

Hey lets just be happy they're getting out of the habit of putting the breaks during the mainevent.

 

That's actually a bad sign. Networks schedule commercial breaks during the last 10-15 minutes of a TV show only if they know you will stay tuned in.

[Hyde Hill]

Yep TNA would have to make a deal with Spike where Spike somehow makes it that the commercials don't overlap. TNA sells the television rights to spike TNA does not get paid or has control over the ads etc.

[jesterx7769]

Seems pretty obvious what is happening and will probably continue to happen. They got two nice boosts since the new year so the potential for viewers is there. However those people were not entertained enough to keep watching (insert reason here) and the people that were watching that were such TNA loyalists turned out not be loyalists and prefer RAW to Impact. I didnt think the ratings would drop this low, that is really, really embarrasing and the sad part is, why would all of a sudden 1.2 people watch? Just b/c HBK isn't there? Please. lowest ratings in 5 years FIVE YEARS PEOPLE I think it shows even if the Monday Night "Wars" created awareness no one cares to watch, maybe if they move back to Thursday in a month or so those people that created awareness would watch on Thursday.

[crownsy]

The number, length, and timing of commercial breaks is usually set up by the network.

 

Fine, then put it on spike.

 

I understand that every program takes a set number of breaks, ect. but those are normally scheduled by the network. they don't have to be at the same exact time.

 

Otherwise, every network would be on commercial the same time every time, when really they try to stagger there breaks to catch people flipping around during other networks breaks.

 

That's my concern, why on earth aren't they scheduling those breaks at other times then EXACTLY when usa does? remember, it's two freaking minutes. You can simply stagger your commercial block 3-5 minutes before/after USA's, similar to what every other network does to try to catch people flipping around.

 

That's just poor programing, IMO. and it can't be excused by saying "oh, it's spike's doing."

 

TNA and Spike have a symbiotic relationship. It's in spikes best interests that TNA do well, and vice versa.

 

Little touches like making sure when people flip from USA to spike they get something to possibly hold there interest is what will establish a viewership for TNA on mondays.

 

But hey, if Spike/TNA wants to keep doing things in such a amateurish way, they will continue to struggle.

 

Add this to a long list of things spike/tna are doing wrong, such as never promoting their main event till the show starts, and people have already made up their mind what show to watch.

 

The difference between TNA and WWE, made all the more glaring by being on at the same time, is experience and production values. When your competing against an established company, you can't be making foolish mistakes like lack of promotion on your M/E, losing opportunity every hour to show WWE fans trying to check out your product action, ect, ect.

[CQI13]

Not sure how many networks "stagger" the commercials. A lot of times when flipping at my parent's house, there's absolutely NOTHING on. Same goes with radio stations.

[crownsy]

I've never once had a problem finding a network that isn't in commercial when the show i'm watching goes to ads.

 

With over 200 networks on Comcast's basic package at this point, it's nearly imposable to NOT find something non- ad to watch during commercials.

 

The point remains, why on earth would you not set off your commercials by a minute or two if your spike?

 

Keep in mind, i prefaced this all by admitting it's nitpicky to expound on commercials. but when your trying to make headway against an established show's ratings, It's little things like that which make headway. That's all i was pointing out.

[CQI13]

May very well be true...but I refuse to pay for television. I'm certainly not the demo they're after.

[PeterHilton]

Keep in mind, i prefaced this all by admitting it's nitpicky to expound on commercials. but when your trying to make headway against an established show's ratings, It's little things like that which make headway. That's all i was pointing out.

 

You're making a decent point, but like you said, it's nitpicky:

 

Here are the quarter hour breakdowns

 

 

TNA Impact did a .56 rating on Monday (off hours of .53 and .60). The show's 18-34 viewers were down a stunning 53.5% from last week while total viewers were down 30%. Here are more quarter hour details [Credit to PWTorch]:

 

* The show opened with a .50 quarter hour.

 

* The third quarter hour drew a show-low .43 for The Pope talking, Samoa Joe, and Orlando Jordan.

 

* The show's highest quarter hour was the sixth which drew a .64 for the end of AJ Styles vs. Jeff Jarrett and Jay Lethal vs. Beer Money.

 

* The seventh quarter hour did a .53 rating (featured a commercial, Hernandez update, and The Pope vs. Desmond Wolfe).

 

* The final quarter hour did a .58 (featured Kurt Angle/Mr. Anderson segments).

 

* The overrun did a .63. The overrun featured the end of the Jeff Hardy & RVD vs. Wolfpack Cage match

 

Average audience of 813,000 viewers

 

Too bad about the Pope..but the argument that Raw won so handily because of HBK's retirement seems wrong since the rating for TNA actually went up while Shawn was doing his farewell address.

[Slagaholic]

I think that was more Orlando Jordan's fault than Pope's.

[PeterHilton]

I think that was more Orlando Jordan's fault than Pope's.

 

It would be hard to prove that, and a little unfair since Pope's segment was noticeably longer. Love the Pope. Hope this doesn't reflect negatively on him (IIRC Raw had Christian/Dibiase during that quarter hour so it's hard to explain)

[CQI13]

Why the insistence on quarter hour ratings? Back in 98 at one point certain "average" wrestlers were outperforming (by that metric) a lot of the big names. In fact, Mike Graham even had a quote on Benoit leaving that went along the lines of "Good. He didn't draw a dime." -- based on individual quarter hour ratings for the wrestlers.

[PeterHilton]

Why the insistence on quarter hour ratings? Back in 98 at one point certain "average" wrestlers were outperforming (by that metric) a lot of the big names. In fact, Mike Graham even had a quote on Benoit leaving that went along the lines of "Good. He didn't draw a dime." -- based on individual quarter hour ratings for the wrestlers.

 

It's how the industry loks at TV numbers. Even if you don't agree (and I don't think they're entirely 100% reliable) it's something you can't ignore entirely

 

Also...if the quarter hours showed Benoit wasn't a draw, I'm not exactly sure that's proof they're 'wrong' per se. Benoit as a draw was very..meh.

[CQI13]

I remember looking at some site a while ago, where they had a record of these things. They didn't have Benoit as a draw (or non-draw). But in that month they had up there (February 98), Bryan Adams had the highest average quarter hour on Nitro. Bagwell was up there. And WWE had a strong showing by Tom Brandi (what the hell was he doing in February 98?).

 

Back on the Benoit thing (and I wish I could see these numbers), those who jumped weren't drawing fans in (according to the quarter hour numbers). Most would say they were much more entertaining than Hogan, Savage, and Nash. Would never know judging by the numbers.

[PeterHilton]

Back on the Benoit thing (and I wish I could see these numbers), those who jumped weren't drawing fans in (according to the quarter hour numbers). Most would say they were much more entertaining than Hogan, Savage, and Nash. Would never know judging by the numbers.

 

Well no..obviously the overall product is more important than the individual quarter hour rating and who was on screen at that time.

 

If the show sucsk, all the quarters will be low regardless of who's on screen..but if that's how networks look at that show...

[CQI13]

I meant most "fans" probably considered the luchadores more entertaining that what the Main Event scene of WCW was offering at the time, but the "ratings" didn't support that. I have my doubts as to how accurate the ratings system is, but whatever.

[liontamer]

.... However those people were not entertained enough to keep watching (insert reason here) and the people that were watching that were such TNA loyalists turned out not be loyalists and prefer RAW to Impact.

 

I will agree with the first part of this sentence as viewership has obviously declined. I disagree with the last part because I haven't seen an increase in Raw's ratings above what is expected around Wrestlemania time. It looks more to me like people that were watching TNA aren't watching either. If Raw suddenly starts getting record ratings then sure, they switched (ps, wasn't last week Raw's worst rating in years?)

 

Wondering if we have any UK posters here. Was trying to find a year todate report on each show (still looking) and saw in the comments a few people were claiming that TNA is killing raw in the UK for some reason and cutting into their merch sales. wondering if anyone can verify that.

[jesterx7769]

RAW's ratings don't have to go up, your logic is incorrect.

 

People would watch RAW on Monday...it gets a 3.7 (or w/e)

 

then people would watch Impact on Thursday...it gets a 1.0 (or w/e)

 

Now that they are on at the same time..

 

RAW gets a 3.7 on Monday (or w/e, but their about the same)

 

Impact gets a .7 on Monday(lets average so as to not be harsh)

 

RAW= Same amount

 

Impact= Less now that people have to choose

 

so while I see what you were trying to see your logic is wrong, people were watching RAW before so their ratings should not go up if people don't want Impact.

[lazorbeak]

I remember looking at some site a while ago, where they had a record of these things. They didn't have Benoit as a draw (or non-draw). But in that month they had up there (February 98), Bryan Adams had the highest average quarter hour on Nitro. Bagwell was up there. And WWE had a strong showing by Tom Brandi (what the hell was he doing in February 98?).

 

Back on the Benoit thing (and I wish I could see these numbers), those who jumped weren't drawing fans in (according to the quarter hour numbers). Most would say they were much more entertaining than Hogan, Savage, and Nash. Would never know judging by the numbers.

 

Having recently watched Raw 1998, I can assure you the high ratings on Tom Brandi's segments probably had a lot more to do with Rena Mero than the former Patriot.

 

But yeah, it's true, Chris Benoit was never really much of a draw. Even without the mullet and with neck muscles that made him look like an early 90's comic book character, he was a 5'10 Canadian guy who never looked like the type of guy casual fans want to see.

[CQI13]

I'm reading that to mean that some people don't want WWE (ratings remain close to same), but some people are turning away from TNA (ratings down). Maybe the novelty of Hogan wore off.

[liontamer]

I think we may be arguing 2 different things based on my reading of your inital statement. I thought you were inferring by 'TNA loyalists' that they watched only TNA and that they have now switched to Raw, which I don't see any proof of yet.

[Hyde Hill]

Too bad we don't get the minute by minutes as that might slightly give a clearer indication who is offputting. Its harder to claim draw though as a number going down means people who are watching not wanting to see something and switching away, while people that get added either come back after the offputting stuff or come from somewhere else and are not turned off by what they see. Only if something is heavily promoted beforehand and during the show can one somewhat asses draw quality so to speak. Its a science in and of itself hehe.

 

And like PeterHilton said in this day and age its more overall product quality then specific segments that really matter, only if during a minute by minute there is a nasty drop can one say that a certain performer should not be featured. These last two Impacts have actually been good but given the woeful Impacts before these two combined with the go home and post mania show low ratings where to be expected.

 

Plus it is somewhat debatable how accurate Nielson actually is, for the sample size they use I read somewhere that if 17 people switch its a 0.2 change in the ratings. They need to increase their sample size and preferably also data gathering methods imho especially in this day with multiple televisions per home and television via the net not to mention DVR.

 

On the UK from all the data I have seen posted TNA is indeed much closer to WWE in popularity, Smackdown and TNA generally trade no1 and RAW is third but that can be attributed to the bad time slot. Some people say that its also because WWE is on a channel you have to pay for on a subscription basis but people that can watch Sky is only slightly lower then those that can watch Bravo so that is not a big factor. Even taking that slot difference into account TNA is a lot closer in viewership in the UK then in the USA and sometimes even beats them, the same can apparently be said in other markets for instance India also shows TNA having similar or better numbers reportedly.

 

The only real difference is that TNA ppv's have always been free since they started in the UK but that is/was also true for many WWE ppv's. WWE has been just as dominant in the UK as the US for around the same time so that isn't really a factor so apart from the ppv's it could be something cultural or Bravo is a better advertiser and channel then Spike in comparison to the other channels and each-other. Any UK viewers out there have other theories?

 

Take into account that this is from what I have read on 411mania and PWI and other available sources on the non wrestling aspects.

[Stennick]

UK t.v ratings are tough because like you said you have to pay a suscription fee for some of WWE's programming as well as of putting time slots, etc.

 

I have no doubt that the WWE could fill a 40,000 seat stadium for a pay per view in the UK, TNA I would find it hard to believe could do 10,000. Again I don't live in the UK but I think saying their on par popularity wise is inaccurate. Their ratings may be similar but in the case of the UK and the "second hand" programming and the bad time slots as well as the WWE being on a pay channel on top of TNA ppv's being free all of those things would severely distort it. The only way to judge over seas pop is by live attendance figures and Vince would murder TNA in that stat.