One would think that TNA Impact's recent tour of the United Kingdom—where they taped the last two Impacts before a huge, hot, wrestling-loving crowd— would have spiked Impact's TV ratings. 

It didn't.

In fact, TNA posted the lowest ratings of this new year (1.05) and one of the lowest in the last 12 months.

So, the question needs to be asked.

Should TNA, Spike or the TNA fans be concerned about Impact's low ratings with shows taped in the UK?

The short answer: no.

The long answer is: no.

I was inspired to write this article after receiving an email from a TNA fan and regular reader of my columns here on Bleacher Report.

Doug Raine, a regular viewer of TNA, one that knows the product and has a very good handle on the business, seemed shocked at the rating TNA received from the last two Impacts taped from the UK.

I have been given permission by Doug to share our email exchange.

Here is what Doug in his first email:

Usually I wouldn't contact you about something like this, but given all that was put into Impact this week, did you see the ratings? Makes you wonder how much us smart-marks know about the business.

It's a valid question, and one that I am sure many fans of TNA have wondered as well.

My reply to Doug was pretty much what I have always said when it comes to TNA and the ratings: It doesn't matter for the most part.

I know what you're thinking.

Ratings are the driving force when it comes to the success and failure of a TV show. We have seen so many shows—and good ones too—on TV canceled for not hitting a certain ratings watermark each week, so how can I say that TNA's ratings don't matter?

Actually, it's rather easy, and here's why.

The ratings—as they are— only matter two two groups of people: the network and their possible sponsors.

If TNA were airing on broadcast TV—ABC,NBC, CBS and FOX—instead of cable, where it currently airs, it probably would have been canceled a long time ago due to its current rating, which would probably make it one of the lowest-rated programs on any of those networks I just mentioned.

However, Impact airs on Spike, a relatively small and young network, and it is often Spike's highest-rated show.

When sponsors want to air ads on Spike's network, Spike charges them more to do so during Impact because Impact is their 'Flagship" show.

Spike is happy, and the sponsors get their exposure. 

Everyone is happy, right?

Not exactly.

The ratings don't matter in regards to Impact's status on TV, but they do matter in a more pressing way that should concern TNA fans. More on that later.

As far as Doug's other quasi-question about how much "smart marks" really know about the business?

"Smart-marks" and everyday wrestling fans like Doug, you and I, know more about what makes a great angle, match or show than those behind the scenes in wrestling do—of this I am certain.

Here is what Doug wrote in his second email: 

I just hope TNA doesn't think "Hey, we gave the fans an entertaining opening promo segment, with Bobby Roode and Bully Ray being awesome on the mic, and actually setting something up for a PPV, and it was DOWN 15% from last year in the ratings! The fans want more Hogan and Bischoff talking about how great they are!

What TNA did last year compared to this year is highly subjective and based on many things. TNA fans would readily agree that TNA right now is vastly better than TNA this time last year.

So it's not the product or who is representing it.

It's all how it's managed.

Spike and TNA look at—or they are supposed to look at— the opening of each quarter (the lead) and the end of each quarter (the exit) and use that information to tweak and improve future programming.

They take into account—well, they are supposed to anyway— the length of the segments, the competition and the length of the commercial breaks between segments and how it affects the opening of the next segment of Impact.

Despite the opinion of some Hogan detractors out there, Hogan does not "kill" ratings.

What kills the ratings, in part, is that TNA and Spike simply do not learn from the data the ratings breakdown provides.

One almost has to wonder if they even look at it.

One of the things that kills TNA's ratings is the poor management of quarter-hour management and scheduling of commercial breaks.

You might have noticed that TNA's commercials breaks are very long and come at the worst possible times, like in the first two minutes of the main event every single week.

I don't know about you, but when I am watching TV and a commercial comes on, I do one of three things: fast forward, throw my mother-in-law out and more-often-than-not, I surf channels.

What happens when I—and probably most of you when not tossing your own mother-in-law out—surf commercials?

We come back back to Impact late, and therefore, that segment's rating score is low, skewing the overall rating.

Sure, there are some that don't like Hogan or Bischoff  and some might tune out when they come on, but to assume that the masses tune out—in droves—because they are on is simply not accurate.

It's about quarter-hour management and commercial placement.

TNA quarter-hour ratings have been all over the map for years because they don't know how to properly program for each quarter. They are clueless as to how to build a strong quarter lead and an even stronger quarter exit.

When they do manage to get it right every now and then, they kill it with a long break somewhere at the start of it, and that causes us to stray.

They have incredibly poor judgment on when to break for commercial and how long those commercials last.

This—and not any one wrestler or angle—is what drops TNA's ratings.

If you don't believe that then I advise you to research TNA's ratings history. You will note that when quarter-hour ratings drop it always comes after a quarter that has two commercial breaks instead of one or one extremely long break between quarters.

Here is the real and only reason why we, the fans, should worry about the ratings.

Right now, as mentioned, TNA is making money for Spike. However, it is not making enough to get the kind of Impact we all want to see.

It's about money—more of it.

Spike is making money on TNA, but not enough to take the show on the road and go live on Thursday. For now, they are complacent, and that is a problem.

Complacency does not stimulate growth.

Impact—while profitable for Spike— is not making Spike enough money, and therefore, TNA cannot afford to use more than a quarter of the roster at a time. It's not making enough to take the chance on showcasing younger unknown talent in place of more recognizable names.

In order to do this, Spike and TNA's investors need to come to the realization that to make more money, they need to spend more money.

Without going on the road or going live on Thursday—things that cost money—the ratings will stay the same, vendors won't pay more money and thus, TNA will never improve.

The biggest problem in my opinion is that TNA is taped with no real reason to tune in unless something major happens that we want to see. A good example of this is when James Storm beat Kurt Angle on Impact for the title. It was the highest rating for Impact in over six years.

Otherwise, unless it's something monumental like that, we already know what happens via advanced video or recaps before it airs on Spike, and thus, we only tune into the parts we want to see—if we tune in at all—and that affects the ratings.

Why would anyone expect ratings to rise for a taped show that the majority of us saw or read about on You Tube or wrestling sites, which provided a play by play, long before it aired on Spike? Why tune in for the whole show when we already know what happened?

A Live Raw—WWE'S flagship show—draws three times the ratings Impact does, because while we know who will be on the card, we have no idea what will happen on a live show in front of a live, always-changing crowd.

If anyone—Spike, TNA, you, me or someone's cast out mother-in-law—is worried about the ratings the only fear is that the product wont improve without more cash flow and better quarter-hour management.

So far, with limited funding, TNA Creative is delivering on what they can, where they can but their efforts are dampened with poor management of the quarters their creations appear in.

TNA is in no danger if being cancelled, but it is also in no danger if improving either unless Spike TV and TNA's investors step-up financing and both manage what product they do have better than they have.