TNA iMPACT! 2009 ratings (8/13 - 1.1)

I never argued it being factual, i argued it being viable. Just said i dint believe it. I found it hard to believe 100,ooo people thot that type of programming at that time was good let alone worthwhile to have them come back for more. Simply my opinion. perhaps enuff people thot the train wreck was good. And i barely trust the ratings system since they only acount for a small percentage of the viewing audience. take a look at this lengthy criticisim and see if it compares to anything considered factual:

Criticism of ratings systems
There is some public critique regarding accuracy and potential bias within Nielsen's rating system. In June 2006, however, Nielsen announced a "sweeping" plan to revamp its entire methodology to include all types of media viewing in its sample.

Since viewers are aware of being part of the Nielsen sample, it can lead to response bias in recording and viewing habits. Audience counts gathered by the self-reporting diary methodology are sometimes higher than those gathered by the electronic meters which provide less opportunity for response bias. This trend seems to be more common for news programming and popular prime time programming. Also, daytime viewing and late night viewing tend to be under-reported by the diary.

Another criticism of the measuring system itself is that it fails the most important criteria of a sample: it is not random in the statistical sense of the word. Only a small fraction of the population is selected and only those that actually accept are used as the sample size. Compounding matters is the fact that of the sample data that is collected, advertisers will not pay for time shifted (recorded for replay at a different time) programs [8] rendering the 'raw' numbers useless. In many local areas, the difference between a rating that keeps a show on the air and one that will cancel it is so small as to be statistically insignificant, and yet the show that just happens to get the higher rating will survive.[9] As the possible choices increase so does the margin of error resulting in the sampling sizes being too small.[10]

In 2004, News Corporation retained the services of public relations firm Glover Park to launch a campaign aimed at delaying Nielsen's plan to replace its aging household electronic data collection methodology in larger local markets with its newer electronic People Meter system. The advocates in the public relations campaign charged that data derived from the newer People Meter system represented a bias toward underreporting minority viewing, which could lead to a de-facto discrimination in employment against minority actors and writers. Nielsen countered the campaign by revealing its sample composition counts. According to Nielsen Media Research's sample composition counts, as of November 2004[update], nationwide, African American Households using People Meters represented 6.7% of the Nielsen sample, compared to 6.0% in the general population. Latino Households represent 5.7% of the Nielsen sample, compared to 5.0% in the general population. By October 2006, New Corp. and Nielsen settled, with Nielsen agreeing to spend an additional $50 million to ensure that minority viewing was not being underreported by the new electronic people meter system.[11]


Another criticism of the Nielsen ratings system is its lack of a system for measuring television audiences in environments outside the home, such as college dormitories, transport terminals, bars, and other public places where television is frequently viewed, often by large numbers of people in a common setting. In 2005, Nielsen has announced plans to incorporate viewing by away-from-home college students into its sample. Internet TV viewing is another rapidly growing market for which Nielsen Ratings fail to account for viewer impact. Apple iTunes, atomfilms, YouTube, and some of the networks' own websites (e.g., ABC.com, CBS.com) provide full-length web-based programming, either subscription-based or ad-supported. Though web sites can already track popularity of a site and the referring page, they can't track viewer demographics. To both track this and expand their market research offerings, Nielsen purchased NetRatings in 2007.[12]

Furthermore, a new problem has developed primarily with the February sweeps. For the 2001-2002 season, the National Football League moved Super Bowl XXXVI to February, when it was placed in the sweeps period, because of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which postponed the NFL schedule a week. Because of that, starting with the 2003-04 season, the NFL moved the Super Bowl into the sweeps period.

Since the move of the Super Bowl into the sweeps period, Sunday nights in the sweeps period in February is almost guaranteed to be a winner for the network holding the big event on each of the four Sundays – the Super Bowl (alternates among NBC, CBS, FOX), Grammy Awards (moved to Sundays since 2003 except during Olympics, CBS), Daytona 500 (finish moved into prime-time in 2007; FOX), or Academy Awards (moved into the sweeps period in 2004, ABC) and every fourth year, the Winter Olympic Games (next telecast 2010, NBC).

and a 1.0 everyweek is nothing to brag about. most shows would be cancelled. however this is a differnt demographic and Spike is a specialty network so it slides.

NBC's chuck consitently got 2.0 or above, ABC's Boston legal got consitent 2.2's. Im not tryin to bash TNA, just disputing the claims made.

1.2?
come one
That was a great show,better than WWE

that's my point

....When people WATCH the show?

IMO, if a show is good one week, I feel that the following week will have better ratings, not the show itself.

You know what I think? TNA really needs to advertise more. If they advertised their product during shows that the demographic they're targeting, they would get so many more viewers. I mean I don't know if they would be allowed to, but they should really advertise during Raw, ECW, and Smackdown. Just mention who's on the roster. I mean the names that TNA have WOULD draw if advertised correctly. I mean come on you got Sting, Angle, Team 3D, Foley, Booker, and Nash, among others. If there's something that TNA is doing wrong its that. With a roster like they have, they should definitely be pulling better than 1.2/1.3 every week.

I kinda bad how they had 1.3 then they have dropped down!

I really want TNA to get ratings out of the roof

1.1

These rating are junk and i really wish people would quit carin about them including TNA. This should know way dictate anything. the last two impacts have been great and most reviews have agreed. again, contrasted by the 1.3 rrating that train wreck of an empty arena match got which started all the hoopla. why dont they put a neilsen box in homes of wrestling fans if you want to get an accurate rating. Again, these things are flawed and TNA shouldnt be applauded or crucified for them.

Clearly, Daffney = ratings

I've been saying it for years.