|
|
Post by PureHatred on Apr 17, 2006 11:54:28 GMT -5
www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=17517&p=1TNA scored a 1.1 rating in their debut on Thursday evenings on Spike TV. The show did great numbers among Male viewers, as they captured a 1.4 rating among Males 18-49 and a 1.5 among Males 18-13. TNA officials have great reason to celebrate. The episode was the most watched TNA Impact ever on Spike TV. Among cable networks, TNA was the top rated show in the 11 PM hour among Males in both the 18-49 and 25-34 demographics. Among Males 18-34, TNA came in second, trailing the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim lineup. In all, a total 1.3 million viewers watched TNA's debut on Thursday, which was highlighted by Sting's return to the ring, the debut of Matt Hyson as Brother Runt and his reunion with Team 3D, and Samoa Joe regaining the X-Division championsip from rival Christopher Daniels in a PPV caliber match. For those wondering how TNA fared in comparison with their UFC lead ins, UFC Unleashed at 9 PM scored a 1.0 rating with 1.2 million viewers tuning in. The second episode of the Ultimate Fighter reality series (featuring Ken Shamrock and Tito Ortiz as coaches) scored a 1.3 (down from last week's 2.0) with 1.7 million viewers total.
|
|
|
|
Post by myview on Apr 17, 2006 18:30:55 GMT -5
A 1.1 Rating is good to see, I thought this was one of the best shows they've done in the last few weeks. Joe versus Daniels kicked tail, Team 3D versus AMW really rocked... I was suprised when Brother Runt came out and helped his Team 3D Brothers. Sting looked better this time out in the ring with Eric Young, and so overall this was a very solid show.
|
|
|
|
Post by nelson on Apr 17, 2006 18:32:37 GMT -5
i dont understand why a 1.1 rating is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Apr 17, 2006 18:51:44 GMT -5
i dont understand why a 1.1 rating is good. well, think of it like this... TNA is a cripple, who just took it's first step with it's walker ... that's the best analogy I could come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by nelson on Apr 17, 2006 18:57:53 GMT -5
lol maybe it has to do with numbers of people who watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Apr 17, 2006 19:43:47 GMT -5
i dont understand why a 1.1 rating is good. Getting a 1.0 is a pretty rare thing in the cable world. Just look at Battlestar Galactica. It's considered a hit and it usually does below a 2.0. |
|
|
|
Post by nelson on Apr 17, 2006 19:49:26 GMT -5
so the lower the number the better it is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Apr 17, 2006 20:27:16 GMT -5
No the higher the better. For Cable getting a 1.0 and up is considered to be really good.
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Apr 17, 2006 21:42:53 GMT -5
TNA did OK.
If this Thurdsay night UFC/TNA block works out TNA should work on some cross promotion with UFC fighters and maybe eventually get a two hour show running from 10-Midnight. We'll see, though. Saturday Impact had a nice little start to it as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildfire on Apr 17, 2006 23:03:15 GMT -5
i dont understand why a 1.1 rating is good. Getting a 1.0 is a pretty rare thing in the cable world. Just look at Battlestar Galactica. It's considered a hit and it usually does below a 2.0. The other thing to remember is it was getting .7 - .8 before. the rating number, as I understand it, is the percent of households watching at a given time, so obviously, higher is better. For comparision Raw has been getting 4.1-4.2 of late |
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Apr 17, 2006 23:17:23 GMT -5
Good for them. I hope the best is yet to come, as the better they get, the better the industry will get as a whole. It's going to take some time though.
|
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Apr 18, 2006 6:46:45 GMT -5
Despite the inherent differences in what each is selling...the two companies are still trying to market monthly PPVs to a very similar demographic...which makes cross promotion detrimental to the more powerful brand. There is little to no benefit to UFC...which consistently does multi-million dollar live gates and six figure PPV Buys....'cross promoting' something like TNA Wrestling with it's 'papered' bi-weekly infomercial tapings and 'papered' PPVs at Disney which at most do low five figure buys. I'm sure that internally sharing a block with TNA and having to powder and diaper the product as their 'lead in' is already viewed as embarrassing enough.
Like Watching Paint Dry (Zuffa should insist to Spike TV that the 'live cut in' promos during his shows be banned outright...even for the specials)
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Apr 18, 2006 10:05:00 GMT -5
Despite the inherent differences in what each is selling...the two companies are still trying to market monthly PPVs to a very similar demographic...which makes cross promotion detrimental to the more powerful brand. There is little to no benefit to UFC...which consistently does multi-million dollar live gates and six figure PPV Buys....'cross promoting' something like TNA Wrestling with it's 'papered' bi-weekly infomercial tapings and 'papered' PPVs at Disney which at most do low five figure buys. I'm sure that internally sharing a block with TNA and having to powder and diaper the product as their 'lead in' is already viewed as embarrassing enough.
Like Watching Paint Dry (Zuffa should insist to Spike TV that the 'live cut in' promos during his shows be banned outright...even for the specials) You're absolutely right. But I really only cared about it helping TNA. |
|
|
|
Post by floydthebarber on Apr 19, 2006 13:21:31 GMT -5
That's not a bad analogy...but I'd prefer to look at it like TNA is a young infant who is slow to learn how to walk. This was another step in the right direction, but to say they are truly walking is an exaggeration.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't ECW only get in the high 0.7-0.8 range when they were on Spike? I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Apr 19, 2006 22:32:10 GMT -5
That's not a bad analogy...but I'd prefer to look at it like TNA is a young infant who is slow to learn how to walk. This was another step in the right direction, but to say they are truly walking is an exaggeration. If I'm not mistaken, didn't ECW only get in the high 0.7-0.8 range when they were on Spike? I could be wrong. that is a better analogy considering TNA is new(er) vs. old like WCW was when it was falling apart. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Apr 20, 2006 16:57:38 GMT -5
I know that Velocity only got around a .8. Spike had that in mind as what they wanted TNA to achieve and TNA has consistently done that and at times gone quite a bit better.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Apr 20, 2006 20:03:29 GMT -5
I know that Velocity only got around a .8. Spike had that in mind as what they wanted TNA to achieve and TNA has consistently done that and at times gone quite a bit better. so TNA's hope is that is can compete with...Velocity? I just want to make sure I read this right. |
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Apr 20, 2006 20:09:02 GMT -5
Well, seeing as how they're GOING to be competing with Smackdown, if they couldn't beat velocity.............
Well, you gotta start somewhere right..? We'll see how tonight goes...
|
|
