TNA: Did Impact! Wrestling See Any Positive Momentum in Viewership?
Even though Total Nonstop Action (TNA) is entering its most important year with its Bound For Glory pay-per-view right around the corner, Impact! Wrestling has struggled to grow its viewership numbers.
The Thursday, September 27 edition of Impact! Wrestling was no different for TNA, as the show continued its trend with lower viewership results (via TV By the Numbers).
On Thursday night, Impact! Wrestling had just 1.26 million viewers during its live broadcast. In Adults 18-49, the show garnered only a 0.4 rating share. On cable television, Impact! Wrestling was sacked by the NFL Thursday night game, which had slightly over eight million viewers and earned a 3.3 rating in Adults 18-49.
Professional wrestling in a ratings funk?
It is becoming more clear and safe to say that WWE and TNA are struggling to grip any sort of positive momentum in viewership. Professional wrestling itself is at its weakest point, as both WWE and TNA are constantly up against tough television programming. The NFL games have also put WWE and TNA on the back burner in viewership.
Fortunately, this is where DVR comes in and helps improve the overall final viewership numbers. TNA, despite a drastically better product in 2012 than in past years, has been consistently garnering the same viewership results in recent weeks.
With Bound For Glory a few weeks away, TNA could see some sort of a boost in viewership, especially if the company plays their cards right with Aces and Eights. As wrestling fans wonder who may be the leader of the group, TNA could certainly use that to their advantage.
However, as it has been with TNA in the past, its viewership surge is normally short lived before reaching its normal levels. Although live programming has paid major benefits to TNA and improving its product, its viewership numbers have been unable to move in a positive direction just yet.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?