I watched probably 40 minutes of Impact vs 20 minutes of Raw ..so how would that translate in the ratings? How are the segments determined ? Because it seems the total amount of weekly WWE/TNA fans is about 4.5 - 6.0 currently - don't see it going much higher or lower in the forseeable future unless Goldberg & Stone Cold can find the fountain of youth -- do you know Kev if the two companies would be happy with a 3.5 - 1.5 split every week?

they're definitely going to have to take "baby steps" on Mondays and not feel like they failed. I'm not shocked that they didn't equal their 1-4 show, just because that show had much more selling it with Hogan & Bischoff making their TNA debuts, the anticipated surprises and all. This one had a "take it or leave it" main event and surprises everyone saw coming or were already teased about with RVD.

Kev, I'm almost always on the same page with you but not on this. I know the WWE is working towards its biggest PPV of the year but TNA was promoting all these big matches and surprises. What was the WWE really pushing other than Vince/Cena? The guess host wasn't really someone to look forward to. But TNA was teasing RVD, Sting, Jeff Hardy and the return of Hogan/Flair to the ring. The surprises and smoke and mirrors will run out soon. The WWE had 275% (or 3.7 million more viewers) more viewers than TNA. RAW was 7% down in ratings and 4% in TV viewership from last week. TNA was down 12% in ratings, 6% in TV viewership from last week. And after DVR recordings are include, I'm sure RAW will still be way ahead. You said judging by the poll on this blog the majority thought Impact was a good show, well judging by what matters most, ratings, the majority has spoken.

TNA IS ONLY POPULAR TO THE PEOPLE WHO GO TO THE SHOWS AND THE INTERNET

I'M SORRY, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THOSE OLD WASHED UP RASSLERS DIRECTED BY OLD WASHED UP FIGUREHEADS

TELL ME WHY A WRESTLING FAN SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO TNA WHEN THEY SQUASHED RVD FOR NEARLY 5 MINUTES AND ALSO RUINED JEFF HARDY'S RE-INTRODUCTION

Neither option appeared very interesting:

Option A: 50 year old Kevin Nash, 50 year old Steve Borden, 51 year old Scott Hall, 56 year old Hulk Hogan and 61 year old Ric Flair trying to wrestle or vying to get back in the ring for another kick at the can. Stale re-warmed gimmicks and personas that last were appealing about a decade ago. Sting with the bat put it over the top.

Option B: A gauntlet match where 64 year old Vince McMahon teases a one on one match with John Cena then pulls a bait and switch and sends in guys at intervals to take him out so he can pin him. Very compelling stuff.

A handicap match, where Randy Orton wrestles two top guys, to a predictable conclusion.

Not cool.

I'm surprised Raw's rating was so low, frankly, because the week before was so good. People seem to think that "the show was good, so the rating will be high" without thinking that no one could know beforehand if the show would be good or not. So TNA should be able to build for next week... except that Raw's got Stone Cold Steve Austin on....

Perhaps if TNA would have advertised its litany of surprises, the casual fan would have tuned in to watch them. Just a thought.

I see a fundamental problem here. If TNA's goal is to "lure casual viewers," they're doing it with a hardcore product -- blood, "adult" storylines and content, and a lot of older wrestlers who are familiar to longtime fans. (With the exception of top-drawer "names" like Hogan and Flair, the other old guys are not going to do much to attract casual viewers. Do you really think the general public has any idea who Scott Hall is?)

In short, the TNA formula is not aimed at casual viewers. And, although a lot of commenters on this site yearn for a more adult product than the post-Attitude WWE, we represent a tiny fraction of the potential audience. I don't see casual viewers being enticed by the Hogan-Bischoff TNA.

RESPONSE FROM KE: When WWE was doing incredible ratings during the Attitude Era, there was plenty of blood, profanity, sexual innuendo and T&A. All of those people watching weren't wrestling fanatics. A large part of them were casual fans who eventually lost interest.

Hey Kevin--Do you think TNA replaying Impact this Thursday is part of the reason for such a low rating?

RESPONSE FROM KE: I didn't even know they were doing that. Did they announce that ahead of time? If they did, I would bet that it did hurt Monday's rating.

Hi Kev,

I didn't watch wrestling during the original Monday Night Wars but I understand TV ratings were much higher.

How much has viewership decreased in wrestling? because with more use of internet streaming, youtube, downloading shows, DVR's etc it must be difficult to gage?

I'm not sure, but back 1998-2000 I imagine it was more restricted to simple channel surfing to watch the shows.

I am hoping that some people didn't realize TNA was moving to Monday nights. Nobody can expect TNA to suddenly come close to or surpass WWE...not yet.

I have to say, I watched all of TNA and never looked in on WWE Raw. Having grown up with WWF, AWA, UWF, NWA and WCW, I loved watching exciting and unpredictable wrestling.

The WWE has been terrible for many many years. The stories and characters are really boring. WWE has not had any real competition until now. With time and the right moves, I think TNA will gain a large market share. TNA is exciting and will only get better IMHO.

WWE is not going to worry too much by their decrease in ratings and neither should TNA. Of course it will be disappointing for them but this is just one week of something that will take a very long time.

The more important thing for TNA right now is developing a good product, ratings should then follow. If they panic and start going in new directions every week in the hope that the rating will suddenly jump by a lot then they will fail. Slow and steady is the best approach and it seems Spike is willing to support them with that.

People on various sites have been interpreting this rating as the end of TNA and proof that they will never succeed. That is just stupid, there is a long way to go but they are moving in the right direction.

Hey Kev, do you ever check out Lance Storm's website? He just posted a review of the two shows, and offers a very intriguing critique of Impact. I've always thought that he has one of the best minds in the business, and he points out some big flaws in Impact that I hadn't considered. It goes against a lot of your opinions on the show, so I'm curious as to your take.

Hey Kevin,

Do you think TNA should be more focused on driving Pay-Per View buys, merch sales/deals, house shows etc then ratings at this point? I can picture Russo/Bishoff panicing at the 1.0 and dropping any long-term thinkig. I don't know how they do on PPV but am willing to guess Wrestlemania may out-draw TNA'S PPV buys all year.

I think TNA has a ton of potential as long as they stick with a plan and follow through. I've love to see major pushes for Styles, Andersen, Angle, RVD and Jeff Hardy, while guys like Hogan, Bischoff, Nash and Sting play minor roles. Also, if they consistently push the envelope on the "PG-13" stuff (Especially with some of the women), it could really become something good.

The talent is there, it just comes down to how the management can utilize it.

Shocking that a show written by the worst booker in the history of pro wrestling would perform so terribly in the ratings.

i think wwe should have a teenager as gm because they are the ones who making all the money in the entertainment today have them to come in as vince baster child but not no one we no some body who we have never saw on tv thats wil be good think about teenager are the one ho atrack the rating an money

Just a little note, Impact only did a 0.98, not a 1.0 as first reported. For you who keep knocking the WWE's PG rating, Males 14-49 aren't the only one's who watch pro wrestling. Little kids, women, young and old, rich and poor, from all walks of life watch. It's not just for the IWC. Vince gets it. TNA doesn't. It's the reason the WWE will win and TNA won't.

RESPONSE FROM KE: You are right about the 0.98, but I always round the numbers up.

in a 500 channel universe, its hard to pull in a casual viewer with nonsensical storylines.
I am not surprised at the numbers. I DVRd Impact, watched the 18 or so minutes of actual in-ring action, and saw no compelling reason to tune in again next week.

The Attitude Era definatly did better with the ratings but it was because of two things.

First WWE was very kid friendly in the 80's with cartoons, Saturday morning shows, and cartoon like wrestling characters. This was the first "boom" in the WWE world. Kids wanted to be Hulk and Jake the Snake. Then those kids then grew up and found wrestling to be entertaining again in the late 90's when they were teens.The shows got more of an edge to them when those teens were going through their own natural rebellious state that most teens go through. They identified with Austin, the Rock and DX. This was the second wrestling "boom". This was a great time in pro-wrestling that I was privilaged to witness. I would like to see a more of a 80's style now so I could feel comfortable watchind with my kids and repeat the cycle.

The second reason the ratings peaked during those times was because of the main-stream getting intrested in pro-wrestling in those times. 80's had the Rock and Wrestling connection and the Attitude Era had Austin and the Rock's catch phrases used everywhere and professional sports players were crotch chopping after homeruns and touchdowns. Wrestling had a very unique combination of circumstances in those two eras.

I don't think the "competing" companies in the Monday Night Wars was as big of a deal as some think. That's why I don't think the WWE-TNA war will bring the ratings people are looking for. The first "war" happened coincidently when the "Attitude Era" was starting. The ratings would have been there regardless.

I don't belive we will see a big ratings boom with the WWE and TNA anytime soon. The ratings are good for watching the buisness side of wrestling but the real fan watches when the ratings are as there now. The ratings fluff in the 80's and Attutude Era were a result of mainstream casual fans tuning in to see what the fuss was all about. If the WWE wants to get those ratings again I think they need to move Raw to an 8pm start time with the current PGTV. I believe they should go to a Saturday morning kid friendly show as well. You have to get the kids interested early or they won't turn into true fans.

hey kev,

after seeing that the latest UFC Primetime installment got higher ratings than IMPACT did(http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/St-Pierre-Hardy-Primetime-Debut-Nets-1-Million-Viewers-23165) do you think Spike is rethinking its strategy?

Well all i have to say is did anyone see the way Ric Flair and Hogan like couldn't even move, it was ridiculous they ought to be ashamed of themselves for ruining there legacies. The talent at WWE out weighs TNA 10 to 1 and you can bring all the has beens back it won't work anymore Bischoff, Vinny Mac is the supreme Wrestling GOD.

Could have been something where people simply did not know that iMPACT! was on Mondays now. Give it a few weeks. Once everyone finds out that they are, the ratings should go up just a little bit.

Once again the highest rated segment for TNA, tied with RVD's return, was the Knockout match. It may have to do with TBP's entrance, but it may have to do with TNA having some darn good women wrestlers. I wish SHIMMER had megabucks, I bet most of the true talent from the big 2 would go there.

well me and my brother have been watching wrestling for almost ten years and all the matches before it on tape practically i'm actuaally on my way to becoming a wrestler and i thought tna was way better in opinion