First Impact Rating

[2GOLD 0]

If they did a .6 (which at this point I doubt) in THAT timeslot, networks will be knocking down their door to get a primetime show.

 

Actually, I want them to avoid some networks like the plague. The only network I want them involved with is FX because they could easily move the secondary show to FSN, move Impact! to FX and if FX pays them even somewhat to air the show then they could move into a monthly PPV position and perhaps convince DISH network to start airing them.

 

To pull a .32 when they were pre-empted in two big wrestling markets is just insane.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

To pull a .32 when they were pre-empted in two big wrestling markets is just insane.

 

This is true, and quite honestly, I'm astonished. FX does seem like a great fit. The only other network that would make sense, would be like E! going on before Howard Stern.

[TNABaddboi 0]

The rating is much higher than the show that aired in that same timeslot previously.

 

That's from the LAW and more huge news for TNA. It will definitely give them some negiotating leverage.

 

Ultimately, none of this matters. The important thing is for the ppv buys to increase --- unless they start doing unbelievably good numbers and someone actually pays them to be on TV.

 

It does matter because it will give them some leverage to negiotate a deal with where they are paid to air, because now they can using drawing such a high number in such a bad slot as evidence of their drawing power and get a better deal. At the very least, they can try to work a deal with a network that truly wants to partner with them like Arena Football on NBC, where no fees are paid, but they split revenue up to a point. Just a thought. But it does matter, because it could lead to a better slot if TNA is smart (at least the Sunday morning slot they talked about it).

 

If they did a .6 (which at this point I doubt) in THAT timeslot, networks will be knocking down their door to get a primetime show.

 

If they did pull a .6 (which I'm not sure I buy yet either), they will definitely be on primetime in time for the new TV season.

 

Actually, I want them to avoid some networks like the plague. The only network I want them involved with is FX because they could easily move the secondary show to FSN, move Impact! to FX and if FX pays them even somewhat to air the show then they could move into a monthly PPV position and perhaps convince DISH network to start airing them.

 

If they can negiotate a deal where they aren't paying to be on FX, then I'd like to see them move Xplosion to FSN (with real matches), have Impact on FX in primetime building to a monthly PPV.

[zyn081 0]

I think it would a good way forward with Impact on FX and a proper Xplosion on FSN, especially with a better time slot on the latter.

 

However, I disagree with monthly PPVs. I think it would be better to have a PPV once every 2 months, something like Febuary, April, June, August and October and December. This means that they would have longer to build up to them and wont clash with the Royal Rumble, WrestleMania and Survivour Series.

 

If TNA were to start competing with the WWE, Vince would take notice and squash them.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Ideally, I'd like to them do bi-monthly PPVs too, but I don't think they would be able to survive financially on just 6 PPVs per year. They have more potential to bring in money with monthly PPVs.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Unless they really build up the feuds. I used to hope WWE would split to 6 PPV's per brand, because the better build-up equals better buyrates, as more people will pay to see what happens. Though, I would hate to have every feud start and end every PPV.

[Guest MikeSC]

We'll worry about the week 2 rating when the observer comes out next week.

 

Let's just all take a moment to think about how ridiculously high that rating is for 3pm on Fox Sports.

 

You just HAVE to give them some freaking credit...don't you?

They did a good number --- for FSN.

-=Mike

So, by that logic, then you'd admit if they had more exposure on a better network, their rating would be even higher, right?

Nope. You can't assume that a rating will be higher on a larger network. It could largely be identical and just look far worse.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Nope. You can't assume that a rating will be higher on a larger network. It could largely be identical and just look far worse.

-=Mike

 

They have a terrible slot on a crap network. Period. If you don't believe they could do better on a better network, you're crazy.

[TNABaddboi 0]

They have a terrible slot on a crap network. Period. If you don't believe they could do better on a better network, you're crazy.

 

Exactly...or you're just so blindly anti-TNA that you can't even see the forest for the trees. Whether you're a TNA fan or not, you have to admit that is an impressive number considering the time and day and lack of real promotion and the fact that they are on a collection of "regional" networks instead of actual cable network. Also, the viewers in 2 of the country's biggest markets were probably not counted in this. If those factors all changed, it's only logical to assume they'd draw a higher rating.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope. You can't assume that a rating will be higher on a larger network. It could largely be identical and just look far worse.

-=Mike

 

They have a terrible slot on a crap network. Period. If you don't believe they could do better on a better network, you're crazy.

Hardly.

 

TNA has a set audience. It's only so big. People flipping at random and finding the show are a tiny, TINY number.

 

If SD moved from UPN to FOX --- odds are, the numbers would either stay the same or DROP. It's be insane to assume that because FOX is bigger than UPN, the number would improve.

Exactly...or you're just so blindly anti-TNA that you can't even see the forest for the trees. Whether you're a TNA fan or not, you have to admit that is an impressive number considering the time and day and lack of real promotion and the fact that they are on a collection of "regional" networks instead of actual cable network. Also, the viewers in 2 of the country's biggest markets were probably not counted in this. If those factors all changed, it's only logical to assume they'd draw a higher rating.

When SD is pre-empted in large markets --- which happens frequently --- the expected difference is rating is, roughly, an 0.1.

 

And that's from an EXPONENTIALLY larger audience.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

People flipping at random and finding the show are a tiny, TINY number.

 

Exactly, whereas on a decent network, you know, one that people actually watch, the viewer wouldn't have to accidentally come upon it, he may actually know it is showing in advance.

 

It's be insane to assume that because FOX is bigger than UPN, the number would improve.

 

Now, Fox and UPN are both much better than FSN, but still:

 

Greater exposure + Greater potential audience = ???

 

Yeah, you're right, only an idiot would believe THAT to be a good thing.

[TNABaddboi 0]

TNA has a set audience. It's only so big. People flipping at random and finding the show are a tiny, TINY number.

 

TNA does have essentially a "set" audience, but the big deal about this rating is that it doesn't necessarily reflect that audience, because most of TNA's "set" audience probably wasn't home and recorded the show like most of the people on this board. Ever notice that the Impact reaction thread is always dead until about 6 o'clock? That's because most people haven't watching a tape yet. This number represents the channel surfers who stayed with the show and that is huge for TNA as that is fresh eyeballs. With a better slot on a better network, you'd have those channel surfers, plus the PPV orderers, which would equal a higher number.

[Guest MikeSC]

TNA has a set audience. It's only so big. People flipping at random and finding the show are a tiny, TINY number.

 

TNA does have essentially a "set" audience, but the big deal about this rating is that it doesn't necessarily reflect that audience, because most of TNA's "set" audience probably wasn't home and recorded the show like most of the people on this board. Ever notice that the Impact reaction thread is always dead until about 6 o'clock? That's because most people haven't watching a tape yet. This number represents the channel surfers who stayed with the show and that is huge for TNA as that is fresh eyeballs. With a better slot on a better network, you'd have those channel surfers, plus the PPV orders, which would equal a higher number.

Your basing your assumption on happy assumptions and theories.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Your basing your assumption on happy assumptions and theories.

-=Mike

 

And you're basing your's on blind stubborn pessimism.

 

Seriously.

[TNABaddboi 0]

And you're basing your's on blind stubborn pessimism.

 

Seriously.

 

I was just going to ask how that was any different from your assumptions.

[Guest MikeSC]

And you're basing your's on blind stubborn pessimism.

 

Seriously.

 

I was just going to ask how that was any different from your assumptions.

You don't make business models based on optimism.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

You don't make business models based on optimism.

 

You better. If you're not optimistic about your prospects you're just wasting time putting out your product.

[TNABaddboi 0]

I never said TNA had the ideal business model. I just said that the rating they delievered was a good sign for them. Whether or not they sustain it and whether or not they can convince new viewers to order PPVs is the ultimate question, but I just said it was a good start and explained why. I didn't say every company should do it TNA's way because TNA delivered at 0.3 rating. That would be basing a business model on assumptions.

[Guest MikeSC]

You don't make business models based on optimism.

 

You better. If you're not optimistic about your prospects you're just wasting time putting out your product.

If you base plans on a best-case scenario, you're gonna have huge problems.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

If you base plans on a best-case scenario, you're gonna have huge problems.

-=Mike

 

Not true. As a matter of fact, in business, you always set goals that seem just beyond your reach. There is no way to broaden your horizons without sometimes being wildly optimistic.

[Kizzo 0]

Great news.....no reason FX is interested in TNA..to pull that off with limited promotion is astounishing...

[Guest TDinDC1112]

TNA has a set audience. It's only so big. People flipping at random and finding the show are a tiny, TINY number.

TNA does have a set audience, but the whole point of the TV show is to expand their audience to people who don't know about the product --- so the odds of people stumbling onto the show in a better slot on a better network are much much greater.

[Guest Duncan Eternia]

Fuck TNA