[ColeStar]

they may very well become the more well recognised wrestling promotion in the UK.

This will never happen. Other than wrestling fans, no one in the UK knows what TNA is or who appears in the company. Even during the Monday Night Wars when WCW had overtaken WWE in the US, casuals here still referred to all wrestling as "WWF".

 

[abv]

Well, they sure know what is a good pro wrestling show in the UK. Brits are smart!

 

[roberta]

At least the British have great tastes.

 

[Jak619]

TNA has been gaining viewers since they were placed on a new channel and with the added advantage of their channel being available to more people they may very well become the more well recognised wrestling promotion in the UK.

The figures you have given are only for certain timeslots. Taking into account Impact was shown at 10pm on a Tuesday, RAW is shown on a Tuesday morning at 2am usually and Smackdown is shown on a friday at 10pm, doesn't say much. Also the 163k shown for impact seems to be there total for the week ending 13th March, whereas throughout the week RAW was actually seen by 242k and Smackdown was seen by 229k.

 

[Kingleviathan]

The figures you have given are only for certain timeslots. Taking into account Impact was shown at 10pm on a Tuesday, RAW is shown on a Tuesday morning at 2am usually and Smackdown is shown on a friday at 10pm, doesn't say much. Also the 163k shown for impact seems to be there total for the week ending 13th March, whereas throughout the week RAW was actually seen by 242k and Smackdown was seen by 229k.

If you compare multiple viewings of one show to a single viewing of another show you won't get a proper comparison. Also to note that Raw is shown live and Smackdown is shown at nearly the same time that it is shown in US. Impact on the other hand is shown on the Tuesday after it was first shown in US, given that people have five days to watch the show on the internet, their high numbers can be considered very good.

 

[afkatk]

I think the fact Raw is on at 1/2 AM is a big help to TNA beating them.

 

[iMMORTALTNA]

I think the fact Raw is on at 1/2 AM is a big help to TNA beating them.

what about impact being 5 days after the original brodcast and people watching it on youtube, download torrents etc and raw being FUCKING LIVE ? it's fair game , their live , and on the other hand tna had better timeslot! it's a fact called justice !

 

[Mr Joe Perfect]

what about impact being 5 days after the original brodcast and people watching it on youtube, download torrents etc and raw being FUCKING LIVE ? it's fair game , their live , and on the other hand tna had better timeslot! it's a fact called justice !

What about Raw being on at 2 in the morning and being available to about half the people because it's on sky sports which alot of people don't have when TNA is available to most people with basic sky packages, freeview etc iirc. The thought that TNA is bigger in the UK than WWE is ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[afkatk]

what about impact being 5 days after the original brodcast and people watching it on youtube, download torrents etc and raw being FUCKING LIVE ? it's fair game , their live , and on the other hand tna had better timeslot! it's a fact called justice !

So what when House was aired months after its original US Broadcast it got high ratings, I don't think the majority of people who watch TV in the UK fiddle with Torrents and online streams is my personal opinion.

 

[Kingleviathan]

What about Raw being on at 2 in the morning and being available to about half the people because it's on sky sports which alot of people don't have when TNA is available to most people with basic sky packages, freeview etc iirc. The thought that TNA is bigger in the UK than WWE is ridiculous if you ask me.

It doesn't matter if WWE has the lower reach or not, all that will matter when considering which is bigger is how many fans are watching their shows and with TNA being on a channel with a bigger reach that gives them a big advantage.

 

[afkatk]

Back in the 90s when the WWE shows were on what is now Sky Sports 1, Friday night at 9, WWE averaged over 400 viewers, so I don't think discounting Timeslot is something worth doing.

 

[Colsworl]

The forum rule not to post ratings threads should include the UK too if it doesn't already.

..but I'll give my opinion anyway.

The figures you have given are only for certain timeslots. Taking into account Impact was shown at 10pm on a Tuesday, RAW is shown on a Tuesday morning at 2am usually and Smackdown is shown on a friday at 10pm, doesn't say much. Also the 163k shown for impact seems to be there total for the week ending 13th March, whereas throughout the week RAW was actually seen by 242k and Smackdown was seen by 229k.

Barb only show the top 10 so no one here can say what the total viewers where for the week. Also TNA have the +1 showings as well as the Saturday 9pm which could have gotten anywhere up to 130k and 32k on +1 respectively but because only the top 10 are listed they wouldn't show it.

Also if Challenge decided to show ROH on non stop repeat throughout the week they would most likely end up with more viewers than both WWE and TNA, that's just the nature of it.

Also because of the difference between Challenge and Sky Sports, this makes it an unfair comparison,; free vs subscription.

I would hope these threads are banned as they just create pointless bickering. Maybe a mod can make it clear whether or not the "no rating threads" rule also includes UK ratings.

 

[Kingleviathan]

The forum rule not to post ratings threads should include the UK too if it doesn't already.

..but I'll give my opinion anyway.



Barb only show the top 10 so no one here can say what the total viewers where for the week. Also TNA have the +1 showings as well as the Saturday 9pm which could have gotten anywhere up to 130k and 32k on +1 respectively but because only the top 10 are listed they wouldn't show it.

Also if Challenge decided to show ROH on non stop repeat throughout the week they would most likely end up with more viewers than both WWE and TNA, that's just the nature of it.

Also because of the difference between Challenge and Sky Sports, this makes it an unfair comparison,; free vs subscription.

I would hope these threads are banned as they just create pointless bickering. Maybe a mod can make it clear whether or not the "no rating threads" rule also includes UK ratings.

I was under the impression that the rule only applied for US ratings but if they apply for UK ratings as well then I apologise. I agree with you that free and subscription should not be compared but it gives insight into how many people that usually watch wrestling are currently watching TNA.

 

[Rated Y2J]

This is pretty big really. The Rock - Cena feud, HHH/Taker, and even Cole/Lawler you would think would want to be drawing, and drawing big. I do think that The Rock showing up at WrestleMania will still get the WWE 1 million viewers which is obviously their goal, but this is good news for TNA and also good news for TNA fans in the UK after the rumours of BFG being hosted at Wembley.

The only logical explination for TNA beating Raw surely is the time difference, with Raw showing at 2am and iMPACT at 9pm.

 

[Gunner14]

U.K ratings are always bollocks. The Sky TV ratings come from what channel is selected on the sky box. So there could be 100,000 people who tune in for the monday night football turn the tv off (the sky box always stays on) and they get classed a viewer.

TNA has also frequently done better than Raw and Smackdown on television because of its ease to watch. previously Bravo and now Challenge TV are both freeview channels that come with most televisions now. Whereas the WWE took a massive hit when Sky One stopped showing WWE programming.