Posted by TNA Wrestling News Staff on Jan 3, 2013
TNA iMPACT! Ratings Officially The Lowest In Six Years

TNA iMPACT! Ratings Officially The Lowest In Six Years


For the year 2012, TNA Impact averaged a 1.02 rating, which is officially the lowest ratings average in the last six years. The ratings are down 12.8% from 2011. During the first half of 2012, January 5 to May 24, Impact averaged a 1.07 rating. During the second-half of the year (which featured the move to 8PM ET) and going mostly live, Impact averaged a 0.97 rating.

Year by year breakdown:
* 2007 – 1.05 rating
* 2008 – 1.06 rating
* 2009 – 1.15 rating (pre-Hogan)
* 2010 – 1.06 rating (includes switch to Monday nights & switch back to Thursdays)
* 2011 – 1.17 rating
* 2012 – 1.02 rating (1.07 first-half, 0.97 second-half)

Month by month breakdown for 2012:
* Jan. 2012: 1.15 rating
* Feb. 2012: 1.11 rating
* Mar. 2012: 1.04 rating
* Apr. 2012: 1.01 rating
* May 2012: 1.01 rating (includes first live show 5/31)
* June 2012: 0.98 rating
* July 2012: 0.96 rating
* Aug. 2012: 1.04 rating (reversed six-month slide)
* Sept. 2012: 0.98 rating
* Oct. 2012: 0.92 rating (BFG month)
* Nov. 2012: 0.96 rating
* Dec. 2012: 0.97 rating

Thanks to the Pro Wrestling Torch for compiling some of the above data.

Post a Comment

42 Responses to “TNA iMPACT! Ratings Officially The Lowest In Six Years”

  1. Buff Daddy says:

    You need to stop showing the rating percentage and focus more on the amount of viewers. The only ones who care about ratings are advertising companies.

    • ricky_No1 says:

      More viewers more ratings. Less viewers less ratings. It really is that simple

      • purpmuffins says:

        No it's not

        • Jon says:

          It is … AND it isn't.

          The ratings are simply a percentage of population. Period. Each rating point = 1% of the "universe" (in this case TV Households or P(ersons) 12plus or M(en) 18-34, whatever … 100.0 is the maximum rating possible)

          Total viewers can actually increase year-to-year while ratings decrease … that happens in the odd case where the percentage increase in viewers is less than the percentage increase in the total of possible TV viewers (i.e. all the people living in TV households). That has _not_ been possible for the past two years however, as the number of TV Households – and the number of people living in them – has decreased in the last two measurements (released each fall).

          And none of this is the most common cause of confusion about ratings & viewers in forums such as this one. Most frequent source of apparent discrepancies seems to be when ratings are quoted for a particular demographic (P25-49 frequently) but the listed viewership is a figure covering anyone age 2plus . A show could have a good week with older viewers (55-64 for example) and raise their total audience but have a down week with P25-49 and have a lower rating. Both figures are accurate, but they're comparing apples to oranges. Same thing happens sometimes when HH rating is referenced but for whatever reason more/less people watch per household.

        • ricky_No1 says:

          Oh but it is. It may be a simplistic way to put it but in essence true

    • Bigmike885 says:'re stupid..Ratings drive the boat..advertisng money is vital for a wrestling company to thrive…and if ratings go to low networks tend to cancel shows..

  2. brian175 says:

    thats kind of sad to see. i think the product is good but i guess people dont tune in.

  3. rawuncutnxrated says:

    Ok all you TNA nut riders… spin this.

    • Bigmike885 says:

      It's spike tvs Hogans bout its the fact that wrestling is in a downturn all around and the economy sucks..

    • pepsilover2008 says:

      Well lets all be honest here, both wwe and tna are in a downfall rating wise. Granted i think impact has more to do with the time switch, but i still have more hope for tna than i do for the wwe because what have wwe done this year. They only buried people that made me want to watch wwe, cm punk? his character bores me now after he had that huge promo and then a quick faceturn. Brock Lesnar? Oh they had him lose to cena, in what should have been a squash match crushing anything he had in debuting. Daniel Bryan one of their greatest wrestlers got buried at wrestlemania.

      • rawuncutnxrated says:

        Time switch had zero to do with it. They had a 1.02 the 1st 6mths, right at their avg… the 2nd half was a .97. So, try again.

        • Pippin0490 says:

          You just contradicted yourself. You say that the time switch had "zero to do with it" and then proceed to provide proof that following the time switch the ratings dropped. Proof that you copied straight from this very article:

          "During the first half of 2012, January 5 to May 24, Impact averaged a 1.07 rating. During the second-half of the year (which featured the move to 8PM ET) and going mostly live, Impact averaged a 0.97 rating."

          Perhaps you should take your own advice and take your blinkers off?

    • Dirk1n says:

      WWE just posted (twice) it's lowest numbers in 15 years, spin that
      People are clearly watching other things, or maybe they're busy trolling comment sections?

      TNA does lower numbers for it's first hour since going live, much like RAW's first hour draws poorly compared to the rest of the show, it sounds like an excuse but the numbers back it up every week

      TNA's ratings have been dropping since they had Roode lose at BFG 2011, that's a fact

      • rawuncutnxrated says:

        Your facts are not really facts. For starters, I am not here to discuss WWE's numbers. Just because I speak the Gospel about TNA doesn't mean I do so to promote WWE. That said, I did some checking & WWE's Raw actually puts up better numbers the 1st 2 hours since going to the 3 hour format, the 3rd hour is the one that sees the decline in ratings every single week. It doesn't matter who is on the show, what the main event is, that 3rd hour which was WWE's 2nd hour sees a drop and does lower numbers than the earlier 2 hours.

        You speak of trolling, no ma'am, not trolling. I come here and speak the truth and numbskulls like yourself start equating my talking about TNA to promoting WWE. I almost never mention WWE & the only time I do is when there is a subject about it. I keep the 2 conversations separate. Something that TNA b*tches like you cannot seem to do. WWE has it's share of issues but I don't come here to talk about them because this is a TNA site. Sorry that you & your ilk cannot grasp that small but important concept.

        PS, your mom just whispered that it is past your bedtime, so get to sleep & no pissing the bed this time little one.

  4. ricky_No1 says:

    Now if that dont tell everyone that hogan is a waste of good money. Then nothing will

  5. HolsG says:

    We really need the x divisions and knockouts to carry the company again over the HW's. At least it's not as bad a WWE having the lowest in around 15yrs

    • Whatever says:

      Yeah but it’s wwe’s lowest against themselves. Who do u think would most likely lose their tv endorsement having lower ratings and who would be the first to go bankrupt tna. Cause that’s what would happen when spike tv sits down and realizes how much money they are dishing out to keep tna on tv. They need to stop helping pay for some of the top name “wrestlers” in that P.O.S company

    • Matt Hardy says:

      WWE averages just under 4 million viewers for Raw though. That is the difference. The numbers are down to be sure and it is not fantastic to what they have done in the past, but most cable tv shows would be thrilled with those numbers. If TNA could realistically get to about 2 million viewers and convert a similar percentage of those into paying customers as WWE, that would be ideal.

  6. Treck says:

    Rawuncut you are a huge www nut rider. Explain raws worst year in ratings then? 2012

    • rawuncutnxrated says:

      Don't need to. This is a TNA site where everyone makes excuses for their lame show. It was Russo, then Dixie, now Huckster & Bischoff.

      Now, how do dem nuts taste Treck?

      • Pippin0490 says:

        Now THAT I agree with. Except Impact has been anything but "lame" this past year and has been widely praised for being vastly improved.

        • rawuncutnxrated says:

          I agree, some parts of the shows have been very very good. I like the work that Roode, Aries, Bully, & Daniels have been doing. They are very entertaining and are the ones I tune in to watch. But they still have very lame parts, Brooke Hogan, the Huckster, A&8's. Those parts that eat up a large chunk are very underwhelming, bore me, and keep me changing the channel. To me TNA is this, they have really good quality wrestlers, but really bad out of ring skills on the whole *though some are exeptions* & their ideas of top notch stories are not very good. Having Devon as the big initial reveal was so underwhelming & I cannot get past it.

  7. Treck says:

    People were bitching about the main event mafia and immortal but they had solid numbers. But you know what was always a ratings spike? The KO division. But impact has been great as of late. Screw the haters they will find anything to bitch about or troll about

  8. dabomcutie says:

    Alright I was expecting this kind of yearly report to turn up somewhere, and I was expecting these results.

    Here is where I see the issues.

    1. Wrestling truly isn't as big as phenomenon as it used to be, accept it. I still love it, probably always will, but it's just not. Bischoff himself stated this in an interview regarding pay per view cut backs last year.

    2. Product wise: good stories, deep believable acting, nice writings. No tag team division, no knockout division really, and regardless of what they say, they have buried the X-Division. If they'd push these places along with the good main title storylines it'd be better and draw more attention.

    3. I don't think anyone has figured this one out. The switch from 9-11(8-10CT) to 8-10(7-9CT). It's not the best time slot like it used to be. I know I can't always watch the first hour because of work, events, family. We eat dinner around that time, we are running to school/gymnastics. Rather than it being at a watch the first hour on tv, then go watch the rest in bed. It's put still in the day, during daytime activities. Rather than end of the night main event of Thursdays.

    In conclusion,

    Push the different divisions, move back to being a full NIGHT TIME television show, and you will get better ratings.

    Let me know what you think.

    • Matt Hardy says:

      I agree with most of what you said. What really set TNA apart was the strong diversity of its divisions. The X division was basically just a cruiser-weight division with no weight limits, but it was a good concept with the Ultimate X since the WWE was not featuring smaller wrestlers as anything but jobbers. TNA's tag team division was great too and it primarily is what made TNA old ppvs a notch above WWE in terms of being able to expect quality action throughout the whole card. KO's were just the final icing on the cake, that made for a uniquely competitive women's division in mainstream wrestling, while still offering something sexy to look at.

      As far as the time slot goes, I never liked it from the beginning, it is too early, especially in the warmer months. Most people in metros eat later anyway and then there are the commuters, many of whom barely get home by the time it is coming on. You know, the people who are in the age group of their target demographic. Not a good decision IMO. I don't know if anything will increase TNA ratings at this point though. They have a really bad reputation. Most of that good vibe that they had as a young company, has been used up.

    • rawuncutnxrated says:

      Product wise: good stories, deep believable acting

      Sorry… A&8's are not a good story. They bought a bunch of WWE midcarders & never has beens to try to get over as a bad ass group that gets run off by a 60 yo man w/ a back made of toothpicks. And some how this is believable? I can't say I'd see a biker gang get run off by 1 60yo man ever.

      Believable acting? Brooke Hogan, nuff said.

  9. pepsilover2008 says:

    They made a mistake of signing a new contract with spike, they should have tried getting on a different channel. Heck even cw would be an improvement and its owned by CBS and wb, so money/advertising would more like have improved

    • rawuncutnxrated says:

      They didn't make a mistake by resigning w/ Spike, they made the best biz decision they could. No one wants a company called TNA that is in the red all the time where you have to funnel money into i just to sign anyone w/ half a name value. Spike was the fools in this one.

      • pepsilover2008 says:

        Funny the rumors have been they turned a profit recently, but then again no body really knows, so please quit acting like you do.

        • facedown says:

          Is this raw guy an attention whore? If he hates tna so much, why bother posting on a tna based website. I smell a troll.

      • Philly_Cheese says:

        No one knows what kind of money TNA gets because they simply don't release that information to the public… EVER… They're a privately traded company, and have no reason to release that information to anyone, even if they asked. Lastly have you checked what kind of ratings Spike gets on all their shows? 99% of them score below .4 which is terrible, the only exception is UFC based stuff, which manages to get the same ratings TNA does. Yet somehow UFC manages to outsell TNA on their PPVs several times over. Their problem with ratings are plain and simple caused by Spike. There's a reason WWE dropped Spike a long time ago, no one watches stuff on Spike and they have severely low advertising capabilities.

      • rawuncutnxrated says:

        Ah, so they may have turned a profit once in 10 yrs. Hearing that, does it even make sense? And I doubt with some of the recent signings, that they are still in the black.

    • ricky_No1 says:

      They have no choice. No other network is stupid enough to have em

  10. incognitowolfe says:

    Why did they need to change to 8pm est time? DUMB!

  11. MRPC says:

    The answer is simple really… Love him or hate him, Vince Russo's writing = ratings.

  12. greekrebel says:

    No the problem is that there are NFL games on Thursday night. Notice after football starts in september how ratings fall.

  13. DJBIGCG says:

    If tna were to resign russo or even try to get heyman when his wwe contract is up. TNA could maybe get higher ratings

  14. Vincent K. McMahon says:

    Allow me to add some light on the subject, you see tna needs too create another show to its company on Monday nights. A show that goes head to head with Raw. Then tna needs to get out of Hicksville Orlando Fl and quit looking like a damn side show at a F*cking amusement park. Then tna needs to literally destroy Jeff hardy as a man, because I hate that S.O.B. then tna should buy out spike tv that way they can have a show that has less or no commercials. then tna needs to put name plates on all there championship belts and quit treating them like props. Then tna needs to get rid of guard rails and replace them with WWE like baracades and get rip of those cheap small steal steps and put in huge WWE like steal steps. Tna should have two shows so there talent can get more time. Last but not least if Dixie Carter were to have sex with me Vince McMahon, while my b!tch wife watches who’s forced me to turn my great empire of a company into a f*cking kids show ( I mean really did any of you fat f*ck wrestling fans see the attitude era comeon I practically had big breasted woman get almost fully naked) any ways getting back on topic, if Dixie were to agree to those terms on a regular basis I may consider sending her over some talent. If she can suck me off like a dyson vacuum, I could see John Cena as The new TNA HW Champion. till then Eat sh!t and die Mother F*cker.

  15. ariesstormjoe says:

    what this article misses to point out is the viacom/direct tv dispute.

    did that affect tna's ratings? i think they were off tv for a week but still.

    once again no pointing out about the DVR viewers. how many ppl watch shows online now? i dunno about others. but i hate adverts. 2 hour show……1 hour 20 show. 1 hour show………..40 min show. whats better? oh i dunno. and many that do watch tna live likely watch on a site online again not recording the viewers that are watching the show.

  16. Calvin says:

    TNA have to bring back the 6-sided ring for the fans and high ratings.

  17. Herr_Odditus says:

    Ratings seem to have plummeted around the same time that the fruitcake Joey Ryan showed up. Coincidence?

  18. JoeWrestling says:

    All it's showing is that the ratings are consistent, not growing. Arguing over 3% change as lowest is pointless and within statistical error for a bad ratings system. The point is that Spike is clearly happy with the number, so that's all they need to hit for now. We will see what happens when the market picks up.

Leave a Reply

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

More TNA Wrestling Headlines