Thursday debut rating

[TNABaddboi 0]

Per PWI

 

TNA 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, the show was the top rated show in the 11 PM hour in the Male 18-49 demographic as well as Males 25-34. Among Males 18-34, they 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 and Samoa Joe regaining the X-Division championshop from Christopher Daniels in a PPV level 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.

 

thoughts?

[buffybeast 0]

Will the show still air on Saturday nights? I watched it this past weekend and wondered if they will still keep the show on Saturdays. I don't stay up late enough to watch on Thursdays.

[Guest Princess Leena]

I believe Spike will show a replay every Saturday night at 11.

 

Thoughts? Until the ratings get significantly higher, and without the influence of other shows, it doesn't matter.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I don't see how it's that great of news, but I guess that's just me.

[RedJed 0]

Considering TUF didnt get a blowaway rating (1.3), the number is impressive, in that they held all but .2 of that overall audience in total, and those particulars on the male demo they are looking for show an upsurge. We'll see what happens long term though.

[Epic Reine 0]

1.1 is there best right?

[Dangerous A 0]

Actually, they held some TUF audience, but not all but.2

 

See, the average rating for TNA is a loyal .8 on rare occasions it dips to 7 or up to 9. Figure that part of the 1.1 is the .8 that watches no matter what. What you end up with is .3, maybe .4 of TUF people who stick around to watch or just don't bother to turn the channel.

 

Even still, there is a problem. If it's UFC fans that are sticking around checking TNA out, are they being convinced to buy PPV's? They are probrably buying UFC PPV's. TNA is getting an average of about 30,000 buys since coming to Spike. Their audience is about 1,000,000 viewers. How do you convince UFC fans to part with their UFC PPV money in favor of a TNA PPV? Even though you've got more eyeballs watching your product, a certain number of the people attatched to those eyeballs money goes to UFC. It is extremely rare that fans have enough disposable income to watch both. This is why I think TNA needs to scale back the number of PPV's it does. The market is saturated with PPV right now.

[luke-o 0]

Personally i think this is great news. TNA have been trying to break the 1.0 barrier since Stings retierment, this really is good news for the company. Hopefully the ratings will continue to rise.

[Guest Chris Xtreme]

Its not earth shattering good news. But it is very encouraging and diffinitly a step in the right direction. Hopefully TNA can average above 1.0 on Thursdays. That would be a step up from where they were on Saturdays. They still have a long way to go but all things considered there moving in the right direction.

[Astro101 0]

Good news. And shows that maybe Spike was right to get TNA a lead in from UFC instead of just sticking them in primetime.

[MrRant 0]

Actually, they held some TUF audience, but not all but.2

 

See, the average rating for TNA is a loyal .8 on rare occasions it dips to 7 or up to 9. Figure that part of the 1.1 is the .8 that watches no matter what. What you end up with is .3, maybe .4 of TUF people who stick around to watch or just don't bother to turn the channel.

 

Even still, there is a problem. If it's UFC fans that are sticking around checking TNA out, are they being convinced to buy PPV's? They are probrably buying UFC PPV's. TNA is getting an average of about 30,000 buys since coming to Spike. Their audience is about 1,000,000 viewers. How do you convince UFC fans to part with their UFC PPV money in favor of a TNA PPV? Even though you've got more eyeballs watching your product, a certain number of the people attatched to those eyeballs money goes to UFC. It is extremely rare that fans have enough disposable income to watch both. This is why I think TNA needs to scale back the number of PPV's it does. The market is saturated with PPV right now.

 

 

Charge only $19.95 or less.

[TNABaddboi 0]

--Ultimate Fighter on Thursday night drew a 1.3 rating and TNA Impact tied its record high with a 1.1. Given the UF rating, the TNA rating is a success, but UF was expecting much bigger numbers and TNA was hoping to maintain those much bigger numbers. TNA was hoping for a 1.2 or 1.3 off a 1.8 to 2.0 lead-in, so they can't be unhappy about their own number.

[Carnival 0]

I agree PPV is way too expensive. If TNA were smart they would charge way less for their PPV's at this stage in the game. $20 or even as low as $15.

[2GOLD 0]

I agree PPV is way too expensive. If TNA were smart they would charge way less for their PPV's at this stage in the game. $20 or even as low as $15.

 

Then they would need to increase their buys by about 20,000 from what they are getting right now. I'd love for the PPVs to go down to $20, but they might get hurt more than helped by the drop.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Would 50% more people buy PPV's at $20, though?

 

That doesn't seem likely, to me.

 

Plus, they'd have to drop the DVD prices to $20, too. Or, even lower.

[RedJed 0]

The answer isnt lowering their prices of their ppvs OR cutting down the number of them. What they need to strive for more than anything is to just continously trying to amp up the creative end. It can be done to get solid monthly ppv buyrates with a quality product promoting those ppvs - yes, even an hour. Using the "just an hour" excuse is BS as they've proven they can push out solid Impacts here and there, they just need to do so consistently and even more importantly with angles, characters, and whatnot that people CARE enough about to order the ppvs.

 

Otherwise another angle that may work but probably wouldnt, would be to return to doing weekly Weds night ppvs. I tell ya, the creative had some really great hot spots in there, and even up til the end, I think the weekly ppv concept worked for me, but from a business standpoint probably not. But having a weekly two hour $9.95 show, then a Thurs Impact building/contuing to that next week, and THEN leading to perhaps a 3 hour "mega ppv event" every so often (lets say 5-6 times a year) on either Weds or a Sun night might fly, but that 3 hour show would have to be dropped in price, probably to $20. Perhaps from that loss of doing a 3 hour for $20, the weekly ppvs @ $9.95 might help the bottom line. But it would be a big risk, esp if those Weds weekly ppvs were live as that would add much more production costs.

[Dangerous A 0]

While I wholeheartedly agree that TNA needs to fix it's TV first, you can't deny or overlook the economic factors here. Wrestling fans just don't make that much money. It's the primary reason why advertisers shy away from wrestling. Some of it is the sexed up violence and morality issues, but the big one is that a majority of wrestling fans are lower income households.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Weekly PPV really wouldn't work now...

 

If you think Impact is bad now... it would be nothing but build for the PPV's. They have to build an audience with their free television.

[LJSexay 0]

I am geniunely happy that the new startup time has shown initial succcess.

 

You know, so many people are way too cynical about this stuff. It takes months to YEARS to actually BUILD a fanbase, and we should know this by now. Growing pains aside.. if you look from the very start, TNA is growing, and getting steadier, and has begun to carve a niche for itself. Kudos to them.

 

I'll be watching.

[KingPK 0]

I'm actually more surprised at the sizeable drop in the TUF 3 rating.

[Adam 0]

^ As am I, TUF ruled last week, and episode 1 wasn't bad either.

[Mole 0]

1.1 is there best right?

The episode was the most watched TNA Impact ever on Spike TV.

[Si82 0]

Plus, they'd have to drop the DVD prices to $20, too. Or, even lower.

Speaking of that, how does TNA do with DVD sales? Is it a good source of revenue for the company?

[buffybeast 0]

Are the only fans/viewers of TNA smart fans, ie us? RAW gets a consistent 3.5 - 4.4 rating. TNA only gets a fraction of WWE's viewers, of course. It seems to me only hardcore fans watch TNA.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Are the only fans/viewers of TNA smart fans, ie us? RAW gets a consistent 3.5 - 4.4 rating. TNA only gets a fraction of WWE's viewers, of course. It seems to me only hardcore fans watch TNA.

 

that's pretty much true, because still, only smart fans know about TNA. The increase in ratings from FSN to Spike is because more the fans who already knew they existed can catch the show late night then during the afternoon. To grow to the type of numbers your talking about, TNA is going to have to do a much better job getting the word out. They're taking the right steps though, with the ad they took for Impact last week in the New York Post and the traveling they are starting to do.

[Guest hasbeen]

They still need to give the fans more reasons to care about each and every wrestler, they're doing better with guys like Shelley but there are still a few that could just be termed generic X-division guys. Your average viewer wants a better mix of "sports entertainment" (and I dislike that term) and action in the ring. I enjoyed the show last week by the way, one of the few I've got to see that I didn't have to tape and watch later.

[Fro 0]

They still need to give the fans more reasons to care about each and every wrestler, they're doing better with guys like Shelley but there are still a few that could just be termed generic X-division guys. Your average viewer wants a better mix of "sports entertainment" (and I dislike that term) and action in the ring. I enjoyed the show last week by the way, one of the few I've got to see that I didn't have to tape and watch later.

 

The problem is you can't do that in only 42 minutes a week, plus having a PPV to build up to every 4 weeks. You can do everything but you have to focus on 16 guys or so and everyone else will have to be kind of just there.

[TNABaddboi 0]

I think Thursday's show was one of the most balanced "first impression" TNA shows in a long time...this one had just about the perfect blend of names and "homegrown stars" and had something for the workrate fan, the tag team/brawl fan and the standard WWE-style fan with Sting and Eric Young's match. If they can somehow keep that kind of balance, I'd say they'd be in good shape.

[RedJed 0]

They still need to give the fans more reasons to care about each and every wrestler, they're doing better with guys like Shelley but there are still a few that could just be termed generic X-division guys. Your average viewer wants a better mix of "sports entertainment" (and I dislike that term) and action in the ring. I enjoyed the show last week by the way, one of the few I've got to see that I didn't have to tape and watch later.

 

The problem is you can't do that in only 42 minutes a week, plus having a PPV to build up to every 4 weeks. You can do everything but you have to focus on 16 guys or so and everyone else will have to be kind of just there.

 

YES you can. You just need to prioritize who you need to establish characters for more, etc. A guy like Jarrett doesnt need even half the time he gets because we all know his deal. Great bookers can make 4 hours into something worthwhile.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Replay on Saturday did a 0.6 according to Mike Johnson, FYI