Join The Community
TNM Discord
@tnm7sim
tnm7sim
TNM 3:16 Forums
FORUM HOME > Wrestling > US Independents
TNA pulls in lowest rating
| Snabbit888 | Posted on 11/22/05 at 22:14:55 Source: lordsofpain.net Bad news for the NWA-TNA, as the latest episode of Impact fell once again in the ratings, pulling in a low 0.6 number. This just goes to show that, despite having a strong show and the debut of Christian Cage (a.k.a. former WWE superstar Christian), not enough fans are tuning in to see it. * * * * * Not a good showing. Is it possible that the honeymoon is over? |
| rey619 | Posted on 11/22/05 at 22:31:45 Really disappointing.. any particular reason for this? Any major sports event or something? Should've thought that the debut of Christian Cage brought more viewers to the screens. Maybe a backlash from Eddie's death? Most wrestling fans tuned in to RAW and Smackdown for their weekly doses of wrestling. |
| 91 | Posted on 11/22/05 at 22:39:30 Give it a week - if it's up again next week, no worries. If not... yeah, there might be issues. |
| Rick Garrard | Posted on 11/23/05 at 01:48:34 TNA pulling in those less than XFL-like Saturday night prime time ratings does not bode well for the group as a whole. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/23/05 at 06:46:07 Well, problem number one is that it's Saturday night. I don't think ANYTHING hits the 1.0 mark or above Saturday nights. I'm guessing, though, that this dispels those myths of Christian being more over than the rest of the roster, heh. Bringing in Christian made TNA look bad, plain and simple. They'd have to bring in RVD or the Rock or Jericho to get a ratings boost. I do have one guess, though. The commercials are a real turn-off. There are about twice as many commercials compared to the average show in the same time slot, and most of the commercials are for that rip-off fraudulant shit Morphoplex. Well, TNA being virtually unknown doesn't help matters. I'm not sure what is turning viewers off, though. I don't think Jarrett is quite that bad (at worst he's the same as Triple H, and even I can't accuse Triple H of gutting the ratings). So yeah, it's the slot and the commercials. What they should do is bring on more reputable sponsers and go to a Wednesday primetime slot. That would help I'm betting. P.S. Oh, and the replay on Monday got a 0.5, so logically the show got a 1.1 total. (Honestly, I don't think most people would watch a normal event twice, so logically we can add up the ratings to get the real rating.) |
| rey619 | Posted on 11/23/05 at 08:24:48On 11/23/05 at 06:46:07, Anubis wrote:I'm guessing, though, that this dispels those myths of Christian being more over than the rest of the roster, heh.I'm gonna use your own argument when I argued the opposite...give it time ;D I don't think Christian makes TNA look bad... but if the ratings doesn't get any higher.. then I'm worried On 11/23/05 at 06:46:07, Anubis wrote:That is true... do you guys know what ratings other Saturday night shows get? For example the rest of Spike's Slammin Saturday shows, or maybe what Velocity gets? I have gathered that it's quite difficult to get good ratings on Saturdays. |
| 91 | Posted on 11/23/05 at 20:19:30 Somebody completely missed the point. The problem isn't low ratings, the problem is falling ratings. If TNA was on its way to success, they should at least be keeping the viewers they had. Like I said, if it's up again next week, that's something. If, worst case scenario, it's down again... yeah, they're actively losing a large bulk of their audience, and that's not promising. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/23/05 at 21:05:48 The problem is that it's hard to keep viewers on a Saturday night unless you have the "next big thing", and as much as I love TNA, it's still professional wrestling and they don't have anywhere near as much history as WWE has, so right now it's merely an alternative. I doubt it's enough to keep the key wrestling demographic (young men) in on a Saturday night (the night they go to bars, pick up girls, etc.), they gave it some time, but in the end it probably wasn't enough to keep their attention on the biggest "going out" night of the week. That's why you NEVER put shows you want to succeed on Saturday night. EVER. Thats' a cardinal rule of television, you know. There has never been a big success on Saturday night. Their ratings would go up in a primetime slot OVER TIME, but it'd have to be a low-competition night to get started. Wednesday is the magic day. Basically, in casual terms, TNA is unknown. Starting them on Saturday night is not gonna make them known. |
| Snabbit888 | Posted on 11/23/05 at 23:04:40 I would venture to say that Saturday Night Live has on the whole been very successful. It's had its lulls, but it's done well for a long long time. But it's the exception, not the rule. |
| Rick Garrard | Posted on 11/24/05 at 03:12:13 NBC's Hunter, Facts of Life, and Golden Girls were all on Saturday Night. CBS had Walker: Texas Ranger and Early edition (both in syndication now). And ABC used to have both The Love Boat and Fantasy Island. Of course, most of these were back in the early days of cable with the exception of the CBS lineup, so there was less competition, but all were VERY successful shows. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/24/05 at 08:52:26 Yeah, well we can't compare today's wrestlers with those of the 70s and 80s either, so I'd say that your points are moot. Yeah, there are exceptions (as I always say, every rule has exceptions), but they're all on big networks (and sorry, Spike is not a big network, they're a modestly-sized cable station) and they are few and far between. So yea, those points are more than a little moot. |
| rey619 | Posted on 11/24/05 at 14:29:18 Maybe if Spike TV had tried to give the TNA a STEADY timeslot, instead of moving it every now and then (like the 2 hour prime time special and the december 8th edition which will be moved because of some Video Game awards). You can't create a regular fanbase if you reschedule the show all the time. Move it to Thursdays on a permanent basis would be a step in the right direction for Spike, TNA and the Wrestling world in general. |
| psz | Posted on 11/24/05 at 14:52:43 Actually, I think most people who would generally watch wrestling (18-34 crowd is it?) are *OUT HAVING FUN* on Saturday nights.... The shows listed (Love Boat, Golden Girls, Early Edition etc) weren't exactly aimed at YOUNG adults. They were aimed at older people who would more likely than not stay home. Now... I personally do not watch TNA's saturday show. Ever. *IF* I'm home, the TV's off because I'm eating dinner with my family (Parent, brothers, neices, nephews, etc). Monday, OTOH, once Raw is over, I switch to TNA. It's actually a good time-slot (That and most of us still think of Monday Night as Wrestling Night thanks to WWE v WCW ;-> We also had ECW on the Cox 10 channel after Raw, here) I think a combination of ideas here would work: Keep the Monday time-slot, but replace Saturday with Thursday (Thunder, Smackdown, anyone?). This way you still have your Monday Night Wrestling as well as a replay in the week for TNA (Raw's replay is Saturday morning, isn't it?) |
| Rick Garrard | Posted on 11/24/05 at 14:56:39 Actually moving it to Saturday mornings and making "kid friendly" would be their best move. Plus it would develop a "new generation" of wrestling fans. How many of us grew up watching WWF All American on Noon on Sundays on USA Network? Or had a local indy that would air at noon on Saturdays on a local channel in the pre-Fox Network days where if you had a 5th local channel is was a non-affiliated channel that would air the "cool" local programming? The biggest problem that TNA has is that they try to be everything to everyone, instead of trying to be a niche based company that tries to expand later on. When they first started on PPV with the weekly shows, they were more niche based and heavily relied on the X Division and clearly kept the NWA title off of Dubba J. Then when they went "mainstream" with the FSN deal, Dubba J became the champ and the X Division was more or less started to be looked upon as second class citizens when they had previously been the main attraction within TNA, to the point where even the IWA in Puerto Rico was stealing match ideas (Ultimate X was blatently copied by their Cruiserweight Division). |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/25/05 at 02:31:28 I like psz's idea better. Mondey I suppose would work so long as it doesn't run head-to-head with WWE, and people would still be in a wrestling mood. Raw could effectively be a lead-in for Impact in that case. Making it kid-friendly on Saturday mornings would turn fans like me off entirely. I don't want watered-down garbage. The censors would be all over that, and we would rarely see the awesome action. Making it kid-friendly would eliminate the X Division altogether because it's a very violent division. That and I don't get up until like 2 PM on Saturdays, so I'd never watch it then. It's be back to no wrestling at all for me. I don't think you want that, because when I'm not watching wrestling, I'm even more prone to McMahon bashing because I hold him responsible for the lack of competition. |
| rey619 | Posted on 11/25/05 at 08:38:20On 11/25/05 at 02:31:28, Anubis wrote:It's be back to no wrestling at all for me. I don't think you want that, because when I'm not watching wrestling, I'm even more prone to McMahon bashing because I hold him responsible for the lack of competition.;D Funniest thing you've ever said Anubis! For me it really doesn't matter as I don't live in the US anyway, but of course I would like TNA to succeed, so finding a steady, good timeslot would be beneficial for me as well. Mondays? Don't you think fans would be tired of wrestling after watching 2 hours of RAW? I'm talking about the casuals here, not the diehard ones.. And Rick, I don't think the X-Division has been relegated to second class citizens.. they still steal the show every PPV, and the fans know it. |
| 91 | Posted on 11/25/05 at 19:50:45 I don't think McMahon can really be blamed for WCW's demise, and lord knows they made very suitable competition for a long time. OK, he might have been the final executioner, but that's more a case of him paying for the "privilege". And no, TNA shouldn't broadcast on Mondays. Even if it's on a different timeslot, it's effectively going to be much more direct competition and they can't even come close to competing right now - lord willing they might be in a few years, but right now they need to give them a wide birth and do their own thing. |
| Captain Tagon | Posted on 11/26/05 at 19:56:45On 11/25/05 at 02:31:28, Anubis wrote:Um...what? It's wrestling man. The whole point is violence. And wake up before 2 pm. I'm a college student and I get up at least by 11. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/27/05 at 09:26:14 I've got bad insomnia and can't get to sleep until like 5 or 6 AM, making waking up before 1 PM pretty difficult. |
| Captain Tagon | Posted on 11/27/05 at 19:10:32 Use a VCR? |
| Zedja | Posted on 11/27/05 at 22:22:11On 11/27/05 at 09:26:14, Anubis wrote:I've got bad insomnia and can't get to sleep until like 5 or 6 AM, making waking up before 1 PM pretty difficult.So THAT'S why you are so grumpy most of the time. Not enough sleep ;) |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/28/05 at 00:30:41 Well I can't deny that, certainly . . . |
| Rick Garrard | Posted on 11/28/05 at 03:45:15 the sure cure for insomnia... the Very Best of Kevin Nash tape. |
| JoeDesertrat | Posted on 11/28/05 at 06:15:34 There's a lot of reasons you could choose as to why the ratings are failing. Sure, it would be better on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. It would be better off at 9 pm too. Our at least 10 pm. But the biggest reason is the product they are putting out. It doesn't matter what talent they have. They aren't using it to its best advantage. Instead they seem to be copying WWE ideas (and I'm sure you all have as high [sarcasm alert] an opinion of WWE writers as I do) They have a-hole Jeff Jarrett as champion. Why? Because he's a recognizable name? Most of us who have been watching wrestling recognize him as someone who got a way bigger push in WWF and WCW than he ever warranted. And they are ending all his matches a la the a-hole HHH method. We have a GM (Zybysko) working against a wrestler (Raven) he doesn't like a la Bischoff and Cena (now Cena, insert favorite name from past). They have some good female talent but I have yet to see them near the ring except in bimbo valet roles. Too many matches are ending with the obvious crowd favorites ending up overwhelmed and/or bloodied. Maybe they will get revenge at PPV's but with an hour show they aren't going to reel in the audiences for their PPV's if they think they can see the same thing Monday or Friday night at a better time. TNA needs to find their Hulk Hogan. Or at least their Taz and Sandman. They need to create stars and action that fans realize they are not going to see on other wrestling shows. There has to be a reason to watch and to root for them. They are not going to survive attempting to compete with WWE. They don't have the finances or the connections. I can only speak for myself but I tuned in hoping to see something that resembled ECW, even in its final years. What I see is something that too often resembles the same tired old stuff that the WWE and WCW foisted on us. Without the production level to match. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/29/05 at 02:05:23On 11/28/05 at 06:15:34, JoeDesertrat wrote:We have a GM (Zybysko) working against a wrestler (Raven) he doesn't like a la Bischoff and Cena (now Cena, insert favorite name from past).I think the heat with Raven and Zbyszko began BEFORE Bischoff and Cena, actually. Unfortunately, there's no getting away from heel boss/face wrestler angles. Every freaking promotions does them too often (even ECW did it). On 11/28/05 at 06:15:34, JoeDesertrat wrote:TNA needs to find their Hulk Hogan. Or at least their Taz and Sandman. They need to create stars and action that fans realize they are not going to see on other wrestling shows. There has to be a reason to watch and to root for them. They are not going to survive attempting to compete with WWE. They don't have the finances or the connections.A.J. Styles. Petey Williams. Samoa Joe. They have their "franchise" players by and far. Truly, though, they need to elevate Joe as soon as possible, as I think he'd be the best champion of the three, at the top. |
| JoeDesertrat | Posted on 11/29/05 at 04:45:08A.J. Styles. Petey Williams. Samoa Joe. They have their "franchise" players by and far. Truly, though, they need to elevate Joe as soon as possible, as I think he'd be the best champion of the three, at the top.While they may be as talented, if not more so, than anyone in the WWE, they lack that cartoon hero quality which seems to be necessary to elevate a wrestler from the status of crowd favorite to mega superstar status. Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, The Rock, the Road Warriors and so on. Either that or TNA simply lacks the ability to put their stars over that way. If TNA is going to try to challenge WWE that is the type of wrestler personality they need to develop. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/29/05 at 06:37:03 Wrestlers like that don't come around as often as you seem to think they do. So far, since the Vince McMahon era began, how many such wrestlers have we seen? I dare say only four that truly fit your description: Hulk Hogan, "Macho Man" Randy Savage, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and The Rock. The thing is, it takes huge mainsttream coverage to make such stars. Think about it for a second. Vince had a propaganda machine behind all four of them. Do you honestly think any of them would have been as over had they done the exact same things in ECW? Or even WCW for that matter? The biggest stars WCW ever produced are Ric Flair, Sting, and Goldberg, and none of them are truly household names even today, while everyone (even non-wrestling fans) knows the four I just mentioned. Ric Flair is ten times the wrestler any of them are, even today, and he doesn't have the same notoriety. The reason is because WWE has Titan (IIRC the company name) behind it as well as a gargantuan media conglomerate. WCW could have pulled it off if the owner had actually been savvy in the wrestling business. TNA doesn't have that, and there is absolutely no way in Hell that they could ever produce the kind of household names that you refer to. The best they'd be able to do is steal the talent, and the four wrestlers I just named are all freaking retired (either factually or effectively). Even WWE doesn't have a household name level wrestler at the moment. I seriously doubt it's a requirement. First, they need to focus on the talent in the ring. Stealing the fans WWE relies on would be infinitely more difficult than pulling in a brand-new niche of the fanbase. Yes, that means they'll be "smaller" until WWE produces someone TNA could steal and use effectively (now that The Rock owns his name, he could potentially be the one if he were to decide to come out of his effective retirement for TNA after his contract with WWE expires, but don't hold your breath), but it's about the only option. TNA won't reach WCW or WWE status until such a star comes along. Until then, they have to rely on the pure talent, and that's where Styles, Williams, and Joe shine brighter than anyone in WWE period (yes, even RVD, and those who know me know what a big statement that is coming from me). |
| rey619 | Posted on 11/29/05 at 09:19:03On 11/28/05 at 06:15:34, JoeDesertrat wrote:It doesn't matter what talent they have. They aren't using it to its best advantage. I disagree. WWE cruiserweight division is a joke compared to the X-Division. London and Spanky aren't far behind AJ Styles in terms of talent, and they are on par with Petey Williams. You can't really say that TNA pushes below-average workers and hold down the good ones (Monty Brown being an exception) Well, yeah, I agree that they haven't handled the championship issue well lately, but they need to build up a proper face challenger (and possibly another top heel), before the belt changes hands. Both the title wins of Raven and Rhino were short and surprising, and even though I think Raven should be allowed to keep the belt during the Spike TV transition (Jarrett's "household name" isn't that much more worth than Raven's), I think Jarrett should hold the belt a little while longer. The difference here is the ambiguity and lack of clear-cut heel/face lines. Their actions towards another are heelish, while they act as faces (or at least tweeners) elsewhere. I like that, it's no reason why two nice people can't hate each other. Every promotion uses these plots, you can't hold that against TNA.
With 42 minutes every week they can't really prioritize them, and to be honest, they only have 2 decent wrestlers (Traci and Gail Kim). Agreed, but I thought you said the timeslot wasn't a deciding factor? A 2-hour show would do SOOO much for TNA, I agree that things are a little rushed at the Impact shows. Course they do, but as Anubis said, they don't come along that often. WWE also needs to find a new Hogan/Austin/Rock.. heck, even a new Bret Hart would do. John Cena? I doubt it... Did they have an X-division in WCW? Do they care about the cruisers in WWE? I think TNA offers quite innovative wrestling, although my biggest fear is that TNA will de-push the division to please the casuals.. |
| psz | Posted on 11/29/05 at 15:29:16 Paul Heyman and VinnyMac are good at taking a no-name, exploiting their abilities to the max, and pushing the HELL out of them to the point where, in another promotion, they'd be a mid-carder, but a mega-star where they are. Seriously, I love the Sandman... But.. Would he have EVER been a World Champion anywhere *BUT* ECW? Probably not (He tried, mid card "hardcore" wrestler was about it in WCW/WWE). He succeeded in ECW because Heyman saw what his strong points were, avoided his low points, and pushed him via great stories and gimmicks. Hogan. We ALL know he's no Lou Thesz. But, again, VinnyMac took his strong points (Cartoony, Big), glossed over his weak points (Any wrestling move that requires serious thought), and put him in good story lines (American vs Anyone else, GenericGoodGuySuperHero for Kids vs Evil Money Hungry Giants and Malicious Kilt Wearers), and he was MEGA over. I hate to say it, but I'd love to see Heyman run TNA (NOT FINANCIALLY!!!!!!) for a few months and see how that works out. From what I've been reading/seeing of OVW lately, his influence is SERIOUSLY being felt (in a good way) over in Ohio Valley. |
| 91 | Posted on 11/29/05 at 18:31:18 Hogan wasn't a no name when Vince hired him to be world champion, he was already a big star - a very big star - in the AWA, it was old man Vernes reluctance to dare let somebody not known for his pure wrestling ability carry the title that gave Vince the chance to make his move and create a monster. |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/29/05 at 22:32:02 Hulk Hogan was vitually unknown until WWF, he wasn't as big in AWA as you're making him out to be. Yeah, hiring Paul Heyman as head booker for TNA (instead of Vince Russo) would be the best thing they could do, period. It should be their goal, really. Oh, and who else would love to see TNA get their hands on Tommy Dreamer, if even for one last match, to be one of the people Zbyszko brings in to fight Raven? |
| 91 | Posted on 11/29/05 at 22:51:45On 11/29/05 at 22:32:02, Anubis wrote:Hulk Hogan was vitually unknown until WWF, he wasn't as big in AWA as you're making him out to be.Not as big as he was in the WWF, but trust me, he was pretty damned huge - when an entire arena riots (yes - riots) because they kept having him win the title only to reverse the decision, you know you've got a BIG star on your hands. Well, Verne didn't know, but whatever. Indeed, Hogan made his on-screen debut (if it was televised, I don't know if these things were or not back then) in January of 1984, and everyone knew who he was and blew the roof off the place (track down an old copy if you don't believe me) and won the world title all of two weeks later. Literally. Besides, people don't kick the crap out of Rocky Balboa in a big role in a major film and remain virtual unknowns. Trust me, Hogan was a star long before he was in Titanland wearing the strap, and no, I'm not a Hogan fan. |
| psz | Posted on 11/30/05 at 16:20:33 Hogan joined WWF in 1979. VinnyMac Sr. gave him the "Incredible" Hulk Hogan name. Rocky III came out in 1982. The scene with him was filmed in 1981. He was fired from WWF in 1981 (For doing the movie without permission), went to AWA. Then New Japan, then BACK to WWF in 1983. So, when he made Rocky III, he'd already been with WWF for 2 years (as a well known heel, managed by Freddy Blassie) |
| 91 | Posted on 11/30/05 at 20:12:40 Yeah, I ignored that since the purpose was his size in the AWA. Also bear in mind that during the initial stint, he feuded with Andre the Giant in a little precursor to their 1987 battle (and Hogan slammed him then too). |
| Anubis | Posted on 11/30/05 at 22:48:28 Well, getting back on topic, it looks like the 0.6 was a fluke. In fact, a 0.2 flux isn't all that unusual. You wouldn't think twice about it happening to WWE (and WWE's drops have often been much bigger than 0.2), so thinking that about TNA is silly. We do have this, though: Last Saturday's episode of Impact garnered an 0.8 rating, back up around normal levels. Impact got a record-low 0.6 rating last week. So all is well in the world. |
| Snabbit888 | Posted on 11/30/05 at 23:51:26 The only difference is that WWE is an established product, and if it drops from a 3.7 to a 3.5, it's not the end of the world. Not good news, but not the end of the world. When a show trying to find it's niche and survive and boost the company drops from a 0.8 to a 0.6, it's more cause for concern. Sure, I don't believe that it was going to be put under, but TNA doesn't have the history/staying power of WWE. |
| 91 | Posted on 12/01/05 at 01:58:51 Well at least they've gone up again - the test now lays in the coming weeks to ensure that a) the 0.2 rise wasn't the fluke and b) they don't have any more drops like that. As Snabby aluded, with the WWE pulling in the sort of ratings it does, they can afford the occasional flicker like that, TNA needs to be in the 1.0's before they can rest easy over dips like that. But it's certainly good news that they pulled it up again, long may it continue. |