TNA News: Did Impact! Wrestling See Another Increase in Viewership?
After last week's shocking heel turn by Tazz, who joined Aces and Eights after Bully Ray and Brooke Hogan's wedding, TNA Wrestling received a bit of good news after its viewership saw a jump on a heavily-hyped program.
Fortunately for TNA, their momentum from last week's show did not slow down, as Impact! Wrestling saw another upswing performance in viewership (via TV By the Numbers).
The Thursday, Jan. 24 edition of Impact! Wrestling landed 1.57 million viewers, which was almost exactly in line with last week's viewership. Last week's edition had 1.6 million viewers. In adults 18-49, TNA scored a 0.5 rating share, which was the exact number from last week's show.
MTV's Buckwild notched in the No. 1 spot on cable television Thursday night with 2.65 million viewers and a 1.4 rating in adults 18-49.
Will next week's show in England help push Impact! Wrestling past two million viewers?
TNA is getting closer to the two million viewership mark. After two consecutive weeks of consistent viewership around 1.6 million, TNA has much to look forward to next week when it airs Impact! Wrestling from Manchester, England.
Will Impact! Wrestling finally push past the two-million mark next week?
One thing is for certain: TNA has plenty to feel good about, as their flagship program will receive an instant jolt of new energy and hype airing from a much larger audience. 2013 must be TNA's year to push its averaging viewership higher. Although there remains a few obstacles in the way, like airing their programming from the Impact! Zone, the company should be confident in the direction it is heading in.
Last year saw many changes to its show format. Despite lower viewership, the new year has already shown promise for TNA to capitalize on the changes it made to its programming. Perhaps next week's Impact! Wrestling from England will show how much potential TNA has in 2013.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?