Posted by TNA Wrestling News Staff on Jan 7, 2013
Average TNA iMPACT! Wrestling 2012 Ratings (Must-Read)

Average TNA iMPACT! Wrestling 2012 Ratings (Must-Read)

— TNA iMPACT! Wrestling averaged a 1.01 (1.0) cable rating in 2012. This is down from the 1.17 (1.2) cable rating the show averaged in 2011.

It should be noted that iMPACT! Wrestling saw two big changes introduced in 2012 on Spike TV including moving to a new 8:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Eastern time slot starting on 5/31 and producing weekly live shows.

Below are iMPACT! rating averages since 2006:

2006: 0.89 (0.9)
2007: 1.04 (1.0)
2008: 1.06 (1.1)
2009: 1.14 (1.1)
2010: 1.06 (1.1)
2011: 1.17 (1.2)
2012: 1.01 (1.0)

Just to compare …. here are the WWE RAW and SmackDown average ratings as well ………

— WWE Monday Night RAW averaged a 2.99 (3.0) cable rating in 2012. This is down from the 3.21 (3.2) cable rating the show averaged in 2011.

The biggest shift for the show in 2012 was moving to a new three hour format beginning on 7/23. Over the course of 24 weeks in the new format the show averaged 4.07 million viewers.

Below are RAW rating averages since 1998:

1998: 4.35 (4.4)
1999: 5.90 (5.9)
2000: 5.88 (5.9) * Show moves to TNN on 9/25 (now Spike TV)
2001: 4.64 (4.6)
2002: 4.01 (4.0)
2003: 3.76 (3.8)
2004: 3.67 (3.7)
2005: 3.81 (3.8) * Show moves back to USA on 10/3
2006: 3.90 (3.9)
2007: 3.61 (3.6)
2008: 3.27 (3.3)
2009: 3.57 (3.6)
2010: 3.28 (3.3)
2011: 3.21 (3.2)
2012: 2.99 (3.0)

— WWE SmackDown averaged a 1.89 (1.9) cable rating in 2012. This is down from the 1.95 (2.0) cable rating the show averaged in 2011.

2011 marked the first official year for SmackDown on cable after spending over ten years on broadcast television on UPN, The CW and MyNetworkTV.

Below are SmackDown rating averages since 2000:

2000: 4.73 (4.7) * UPN (broadcast TV)
2001: 4.03 (4.0) * UPN (broadcast TV)
2002: 3.52 (3.5) * UPN (broadcast TV)
2003: 3.30 (3.3) * UPN (broadcast TV)
2004: 3.18 (3.2) * UPN (broadcast TV)
2005: 3.04 (3.0) * UPN (broadcast TV)
2006: 2.46 (2.5) * Show moves to The CW on 9/22
2007: 2.64 (3.6) * The CW (broadcast TV)
2008: 2.33 (2.3) * Show moves to MyNetworkTV on 10/3
2009: 1.94 (1.9) * MyNetwork TV (broadcast TV)
2010: 1.81 (1.8) * Show moves to cable on Syfy on 10/1
2011: 1.95 (2.0)
2012: 1.89 (1.9)

Post a Comment

33 Responses to “Average TNA iMPACT! Wrestling 2012 Ratings (Must-Read)”

  1. Buff Daddy says:

    Looks like wrestling in general dropped .2 points.

  2. Stunner says:

    I’m a former WWE guy and I still think TNA is putting out a better product. About two years ago RAW was so bad a friend of mine and I decided to try and decide the matches before the happened . Guess what we were 3 out 4 and I turned . RAW has gotten way to predictable an the recaps take up a lot of time. SMH so 2013 I’m going to watch only TNA so far not to bad, it’s not great however it’s better than watching THE Big Slow! Lol!

    • soyfenomenal says:

      You stopped watching WWE because you got a couple of predictions in a 50/50 chance correct?
      Not defending WWE at all, but that's shitty reasoning.

      • Tiffanydude says:

        not really if you're right 3 out 4 times then that means WWE's creative team is becoming horrible and very predictable also WWE's product is losing it's quality, TNA on the other hand is using guys right like Christian York and Ace's & Eight story is fun to watch. I think TNA can only get better in the later months

        • rawuncutnxrated says:

          3/4 times on one show & your calling WWE's creative team horrible? Just admit that you're a TNA symp & really don't care as long as no one bashes your precious TNA. Also, A&8's is not fun to watch, it's very boring, talk about predictions, the big reveals have all been obvious.

          • Tiffanydude says:

            Well someone's cranky, WWE's ratings has been DECLINING while TNA's has been at a steady rate of 1.0-1.1 numbers don't lie. And don't give me the "WWE is more popular or has bigger venues or draws more fans or has/makes more money blah blah blah……." It doesn't matter how many people watch your show if you can't keep them continuing to. Something is very wrong if you keep losing your fans, number 1 reason it has to do with your product. WWE's creative team are horrible they even took the AJ and pregnant chick storyline and just changed bits and pieces of it. Live in your little WWE PG fantasy world, keep pretending that Hornswoggle is "funny" and Cody Rhodes doesn't look like a baby version of Jon Swanson. While I'm here watching actual wrestling, and yes TNA isn't Good God Almighty but it's sure as hell more entertaining than anything WWE has put out since they went PG.

          • rawuncutnxrated says:

            Yea, you keep on liking your Stink as champ & your drugged out jeff hardy symp.

          • Tiffanydude says:

            oh ignoring my paragraph comment and insulting an Icon of 20+ years and an ex druggie who happens to have more money you could ever want with a wife and child and millions of fans supporting him and the strength to conquer his drug addiction…….yea sure buddy just keeping making your "jokes" and just go away :)

      • rawuncutnxrated says:

        It really is stupid as you said. All PW is scripted & it doesn't take much to figure out winners & losers on any PW show, especially if you've tuned in. The longer you watch the more apt you are to guessing correctly. The reason we all watch is to be entertained. The drama, the moves, the work rate. These are reasons we tune in. Hell, the live audience can make or break a show for those at home. Anyway, you hit the nail on the head w/ all of it. We all know Undertaker is going to win each Mania, yet people tune in like crazy, it is always in the running for match of the year, and it gives that big time feel to it.

        Side note, Big Show (and I'm not a fan) has been doing some of his best work lately. Mostly on the mic, but some of his in ring stuff has looked better as well.

  3. Matt Hardy says:

    2000: 5.88 (5.9) * Show moves to TNN on 9/25 (now Spike TV)
    2001: 4.64 (4.6)
    2002: 4.01 (4.0)
    2003: 3.76 (3.8)
    2004: 3.67 (3.7)

    This is for everyone who says that TNA's problem is Spike TV and that they can't draw ratings because of Spike. Bottom line, there is no reason why TNA doesn't have the capability to do at least 2 million fans on Spike on a regular basis, if the product was what people wanted to see. That is just barely half of WWE RAW. If you are the number 2 you should at least be able to do that even in a bust period. It is obvious some fans have tuned out of WWE due to dissatisfaction, but TNA hasn't given them a reason to come over. I mean for god sakes, ROH has reportedly at times beat TNA in some markets with their crappy syndication deal , weird time slots and no advertising.

    • tna24 says:

      i know right, i seen roh on tv before, but it was never on the same time slots. once it was i thik at night another it was i think either mid afternoon or morning

      • Matt Hardy says:

        I literally have to record ROH on two different channels at 3 different times, because I never know if it is going to be shown or not. Sometimes for no apparent reason, it will not be shown when it is supposed to be in my market.

    • WARISNAUGHTY says:

      'If you are the number 2 you should at least be able to do that even in a bust period.' There is one bakery in a town which has been very successful for a number of years and has a loyal customer base. A new bakery starts up because they think there is room for competition. Should that bakery be doing half the business of the other company? No. Why? Because both bakeries are doing different things, tailoring to different markets. One has the nice white and fluffy rolls, the other uses less yeast to make their product harder, grittier if you will. You can't assume that TNA ratings should be higher by virtue of being second place in the market.

      • Matt Hardy says:

        You will notice I stated "IF THE PRODUCT WAS WHAT PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE"

        • WARISNAUGHTY says:

          You will notice the arbitrary nature of assigning a factious value to popularity. People do want to see it, therefore they do.

          • Matt Hardy says:

            There is nothing arbitrary about the fact that TNA has the ability to draw at least 2 million fans on Spike TV. WWE proved this is possible, whereas TNA fans often bitch and complain that the network is the reason for their failure to do so. The failure is completely on the part of TNA to find a formula that works.

          • WARISNAUGHTY says:

            I partially agree with you. I am a firm believer TNA needs to differentiate itself more so than it currently is from the E, however I am a proponent that in order from the company to do this they need to think outside the box in ways not done so for 15 years. But guess that is neither her nor there. What WWE has which TNA does not is a budget. Without it they are unlikely to become serious competition. Yes you could argue that, but honestly can either of us say about the average viewership change in Spike? Or the amount of money they have spent promoting both promotions? Market awareness works in the short-term in terms of media presence which TNA has ALWAYS lacked. Were TNA on a bigger network would they get higher ratings? It is likely because of the new company would want to see bigger ratings and thus promote the hell out of it. BUT and here is the big BUT. Ratings would need to sustain a 1.3 for Spike to do this, or drop to a 0.6. All TNA can currently do is try to be inventive and cater to it's core audience and try not lose ground. You could have a thing which is better than an Ipad, but unless you are willing to spend 300-700 million on it, no one will buy it. Sad fact.

      • rawuncutnxrated says:

        TNA isn't an "upstart" they been around for 10yrs, they have a number of old WWE stars, they have arguably the biggest name ever in PW on their roster. There really is no reason that TNA shouldn't do better… that is if they didn't alienate so many people for years. They would randomly start & stop programs, they would flip the belt each time they went a new direction. People got tired of the sh*t. I know I did, that's why I would turn off each time they gave Sting the belt the last 2-3 times. And because of that I missed the about half of Roode's heel turn & the Storm program. Not my fault, I boycotted. Let's just face it, people gave TNA a shot, probably multiple times & got tired of the bs. No matter what they do now, TNA lost people's trust. They have alternative programming they enjoy, and I'm not saying WWE, I mean 8p on Thrs. They may never get a shot w/ a lot of those they lost again.

  4. Treck says:

    I am glad they shown www ratings. Never like www talk. But this proves that wrestling in general is falling in ratings

  5. tna24 says:

    you can all dislike this if you want, but this show, wrestling is losing people, not just tna rating going down, but top dog wwe rating are being hit. so look like wrestling is slowly dying

    • Dependant says:

      Yup unless they do some drastic changes.

    • TwIsTeD_EnEmY says:

      I'd put it down to the aging wrestling audience.
      I mean, all my friends used to watch it, but now they are too busy working or studying.

      • piro4351 says:

        good point. thing is, back in the 90s, wrestling was incredibly hip and exciting to watch..and mma was still just getting started really..but nowadays, wrestling is rather stale, cant attract a lot of new audiences and the old audience from the 90s/ early 2000s as u too busy to bother with it this leads to Wrestling in general losing audience

    • tnadude says:

      I'll disagree with you :).

      "Wrestling is slowly dying". No. Wrestling comes and goes. Hulkamania (and yes, Vince helped create Hulkamania too) took wrestling to a new level in the late 80s. It got wrestling national exposure in major streams, national events, and launched Wrestlemania. And then it because predictable.

      Enter the nWo. Hogan a BAD GUY? You outta your mind?!? What? I gotta see THIS! And the nWo went running wild. And then it grew stale.

      Enter Stone Cold. At a time when America was rebellious, Austin was the quintessential rebel. With foul language and respect for nobody, he picked up the ball. And just at that time there was another guy with as much talent as we've ever seen – The Rock.

      And the rest is history. Stone Cold got stale (and injured), and The Rock took his services elsewhere. Wrestling got stale and stayed that way. Just like it did prior to the formation of the nWo.

      Enter Dana White and the UFC with a similar (but better) business model appealing to the same audience with a similar product (but real).

      So how does wrestling turn the corner? For one, it will happen as the UFC loses popularity. That's bound to happen because of the number of injuries they sustain and as the fighters get closer and closer in talent. Don't believe me, imagine the UFC with GSP & Anderson Silva retired. Ouch – yeah – that's not a pretty picture.

      The second thing they need to do is become more compelling to watch. And that starts and ends with story lines (not in-ring work, folks). Wrestling is a soap-opera for men (no offense, gals). So how is it that Days of Our Lives has been on the air for nearly 50 years? It ain't the acting. It's the story line. Same thing for wrestling. ROH & Indy matches are typically far faster-paced than WWE, but guess who sells? Ya got it – the one with the higher-quality production.

      The third thing is cliff-hangers. Soaps do it seemingly every day. Why can't wrestling run 3 or 4 story lines at a time and give us one a week?

      BTW – I hate soaps and don't watch them. I also believe a primarily male audience wants and needs high-paced matches. I certainly support that myself. My point though is that these are the top priorities for a wrestling company if they want to grow.

      Oh, yeah – and don't forget the kids. I'm far more likely to spend my entertainment dollars on my little ones than myself. So if the product includes them (and their heroes), you're more likely to get me to the gate. Just sayin'.

    • Matt Hardy says:

      The Wrestling industry is changing but it will not die. WWE is going to be around for the foreseeable future unless Vince decides to sell it before he himself dies. Then WWE might go out, simply for the fact that love him or hate him, it is Vince McMahon's vision that has driven WWE. An outside entity, like the situation WCW was in with a parent company who neither had the experience or understanding of running a wrestling company might allow it to wither on the vine. Other than that, it will be around in some form as long as Vince, Stephanie or HHH are running it. It is the other wrestling companies who hover around the level between indy and true national promotion, such as TNA and ROH, that have the most uncertain futures right now. I have said for a while that if we don't have another promotion like ECW that ignites a real alternative cult following and soon, there will be no revival of wrestling as what we have known since at least the late 70's. WWE will be like the Harlem globetrotters or the old ice capades and all the rest will be small local indies with part-time employees, who primarily wrestle as a hobby. WWE has basically become the mainstream industry and there is apparently no room for competition that does not think outside the box.

  6. hangers says:

    The show was gaining its own momentum in 2009 until HH and EB joined….

    • tna24 says:

      i miss the days when tna was so different, 6 sides, the amazing PPV matches, the great tournaments. now tna turn into a wannabe wcw/wwe. we dont have the it factor that made tna what it was . now we have is just the old played out cage matches and ladder matches

    • tnadude says:

      With 2011 being the highest related year ever…

      Just saying'…

  7. tna24 says:

    i miss some of the people that left, like roxy,jay lethal,petey, etc.. , not saying tna roster now isnt great. it just isnt what it use to be

  8. Steven kelly says:

    Only thing i want to see is james storm with that dam belt for at least three months tna have royally screwed this guy twice and hes never once bitched about it hes tna loyal through and through that loyalty deserves an aj styles type of push nt nearly at promised land then slamming door in his face smh

  9. Cam says:

    To be honest and I know a lot of the marks are going to call me a “wwe fanboy or defending wwe but” WWE’s ratings always take a dive from about June to December and spike from January threw April/May. This is nothing new and I don’t see how y’all don’t realize that or even see that. The wrestling business as a whole is taking a hit but WWE’s rating are pretty much the same every year, TNA’s ratings I have no clue what is the reason they cannot break past the low ones. They have guys who are proven draws and don’t say it’s because most people only watch wwe or only know about wwe. There is an entire fan base that watches wwe and other wrestling companies or just watch indies, Spike isn’t to blame, it’s TNA’s job to pay for marketing

  10. stocksharkbite says:

    I tired watching ROH and what a crapfest that was!

  11. thumility says:

    TNA was the most exciting and the storylines were great when Jeff Jarrett was running the show. Storylines weren't all over the place and all the divisions were featured properly: heavyweight, knockouts and X-division. When Jeff Jarrett stopped running the show and Hogan and Bischoff took over in January of 2010, there has been a huge difference in the quality of the show. Storylines don't make sense or are just scrapped with no explanation (i.e. Dixie Carter/ AJ Styles/ Claire Lynch or when Samoa Joe got kidnapped in the van. We still don't know who kidnapped him). There are no great storylines anymore, wrestlers aren't seen on television for months at a time and are not being properly utilized. Under this new leadership, nothing is connected. Guys are just thrown in the ring with no stories behind the matches, and every division is bad right now. When Jeff Jarrett was running things I sat and watched a whole 2 hours of Impact excited with anticipation. Now I only watch for the knockouts division (which they are doing a horrible job with them) and I fast forward through everything else pretty much. If TNA brings back Jeff Jarrett and let him run the show, I don't think we would be having this discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More TNA Wrestling Headlines