I'm Just Sayin': Let's Play the Rating Game

I’m here to tell you what I know about ratings.

Let’s keep in mind that I’m not a professional when it comes to this, nor have I taken any courses on gauging what television viewers are watching, when they watch it, or why they watch it.

However, having been a fan of professional wrestling for most of my life and after participating as a Nielsen family, I’m here to lay some basic groundwork for understanding why ratings are important and the real reason behind why some fans (self included) make such a big deal out of them.

According to Wikipedia, Nielsen ratings are “ audience measurement systems developed by Nielsen Media Research, in an effort to determine the audience size and composition of television programming in the United States.”

Nielsen ratings are garnered in two measurements: ratings point and share .  A single ratings point represents one percent of the estimated total number of households in the nation that have televisions.  A share is the percentage of televisions in use tuned in to the program. 

So, in using the example provided by Wikipedia, if a given program gets a 9.2 rating with a 15 percent share, it means that an average of 9.2 percent of the estimated 114.9 million television homes were tuned in to the program at any given moment, while 15 percent of those same households were tuned in during the show’s time slot.

From my understanding, it’s the difference between flipping the channels and watching the whole show.

Before going on, I must point out here that the Nielsen ratings are not directly indicative of the quality of a show.  Simply put, a show could be excellent but receive low ratings points and shares.  The ratings point and share only track the number of estimated televisions in the nation tuned in to a particular program.

This is especially important to know when talking about demographics , which refers to selected population characteristics such as race, age, sex, income, disabilities, location, employment status, etc. 

The most sought out demographic is the 18-49 age range demographic, and since we’re discussing pro wrestling, the male 18-49 demographic is akin to the Holy Grail.

Depending on the popularity of a given program, the network it is shown on, and the time slot it occupies, that program or network can charge advertisers a particular amount of money to air commercials during that program’s time slot, especially if the advertiser sells a product that members of a particular demographic might find appealing.

In keeping with Wikipedia’s example, Grey’s Anatomy was able to charge $419,000 per commercial during its 2007-2008 television season due to its popularity with a certain demographic.

The downside to the Nielsen ratings system is mainly that it is outdated, does not account for television programs that are recorded using a DVR, and that it makes a huge estimation based off of a rather small sampling of the total national population.

However at this point, this is the main system that the entertainment system has to work with regarding tracking what people watch, when they watch it, and what they should advertise while they’re watching it. 

So in reality, the ratings aren’t really about the fans or consumers.  The ratings are really all about money .

And with that, dear friends, we arrive to the real point of The Ratings Game.

Here’s a comment I left in my piece, “I’m Just Sayin’: A Dissenting View of TNA vs. WWE, Day One ”:

“As you said, ratings determine how many people watch a show…

Advertisers look at this info and pay to run particular commercials during particular shows on particular networks, as the people watching that show at that time are more prone to want to invest money into whatever is being advertised during their favorite program. Hence why we got more commercials about beer and Ford trucks during the Superbowl than ads for fabric softener and Spongebob DVDS.

If a large number of people are watching a show at a particular time, a network can demand more money from the advertiser to place their commercial during that time slot. The network gets more money depending on how many people watch the product, and may even reward the show by giving it extra minutes, hours, or timeslots on the network.”

Hence, a 1.5 rating is a hell of a lot better than a 1.14, as it is the difference between 1 million or 2 million people watching the show.

Now, here’s what Vince Russo said about ratings in his recently released book, Rope Opera: How WCW Killed Vince Russo :

“The bottom line: All USA Network cared about was ratings.  All all television stations care about is ratings.  Do the math: The higher the ratings, the more people are watching your show.  The more people who are watching your show, the more money advertisers will pay to advertise on your show.  The more advertisers pay to advertise on your network, the more money the network makes.  Right now in my head the O’Jays are screamin' in my ear, ‘Money, money, money…money!’”*

So you see that ratings have nothing to do really with the quality of the product or the fans for that matter.  It’s all about money, which is why ratings are so important.  Remember that any business, outside of non-profits, are in business to make at least ten dollars more than the twenty dollars spent to produce something for consumption.

So while the ratings system may be archaic and inaccurate, and while those numbers may mean nothing to us in light of how we viewed the product, the undeniable fact is that networks, advertisers, producers and a vast amount of people use these numbers to determine their profit margins.  Period.

This brings me to TNA’s and the WWE’s recent ratings slide.

I’ve always been incredibly critical of TNA’s product and its subsequent ratings, especially after Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff took “control” of the company.  I’ve been critical, however, because these numbers are extremely important for the company and Spike TV.

Since moving to Monday nights, head-to-head with the WWE’s crown jewel RAW , TNA’s ratings have dropped significantly.  In all honesty, TNA’s ratings have been sliding since Jan. 28.  For the sake of brevity, I’ll only talk about iMPACT’s ratings from the last four weeks:

·        March 4 (last episode of iMPACT on Thursday Nights) — 1.1

·        March 8 (Debut of iMPACT on Monday Nights) — 1.0

·        March 15 — 0.8

·        March 22 — 0.9

Recall that these numbers are ratings points , which essentially say that an average of one percent of the estimated households with televisions was tuned in at some point to Spike TV during iMPACT ’s time slot.

The share will tell us the percentage of television sets in use that was tuned in during that time slot.

Here’s the bad part: on March 15, for example, only eight tenths of television households on average were tuned in at a given moment during iMPACT .  A lot of people, including Dixie Carter herself, tried to mask their disappointment by stating that it would take time for the ratings to rise.

However, you can clearly see that in previous weeks the show did better compared to March 15, so how long will it take for these ratings to “rise,” especially in light of the fact that the ratings before were doing extremely well before the move to Monday nights?

There lies one of the problems: iMPACT’s move to Monday nights. 

There are a lot of factors to consider when looking at these numbers, especially the fact that TNA chose to move its flagship show to a primetime spot on Monday night against not only the WWE but also other ratings giants such as American Pickers, NCIS, etc.   

A lot of people believe that the show would do better if it started one hour before RAW , which would definitely bring in better ratings than what they’ve been seeing as of late.

In all of the company’s zeal, was it really a good decision for them to move iMPACT to Monday nights, especially seeing as they were far from bringing in more than two percent of viewers out of the estimated total homes with televisions?

Whatever the case may be, TNA lost viewers with their move to Monday nights, which not only hurts the company but also hurts Spike TV.  If advertisers view these numbers as markers for the profitability of their product, then surely Spike TV can’t expect to demand $419,000 per commercial to be aired during iMPACT’s time slot.

This is damning in particular to TNA because television revenue is one of the main ways the company makes money.  Remember that TNA cannot charge admission to the Impact Zone, and they are pretty much giving their television tapings and pay per views away for free to people visiting Universal Studios.

It’s also damning because TNA is very capable of producing a quality television product (albeit not consistently).  As I’ve said several times before, Jesus Christ could appear on an episode of iMPACT , but if only eight tenths of the television households are watching at a given time, then it doesn’t make a difference.

There’s also the question of the quality of the product.  Earlier in this piece, my exact words were that the ratings “were not directly indicative of the quality of the product. ”  The key words in that statement are not directly indicative .

When considering the fans’ viewing habits, we’re more likely to tune away from a weekly episodic program if the previous episode wasn’t all that appealing to us.  The same works in reverse as well; if the show from a previous week was great, then not only will that same viewer tune in the next week, but more viewers will probably do so as well.

This is where the news is good for TNA, as their show from this past Monday was up six tenths since their show last week. 

So by looking at the ratings, we can assume that there must be something good about the product that caused its numbers to go up.  Also, we’re not looking at the show’s shares, which were also up from the previous week as well.  In fact, TNA did well in its target demographic, which would be the coveted male 18-49 demographic.

But, we have to remember that if the overall ratings—the average percentage of households watching the product at an given time—are down, then the company stands a chance of losing money big time.  Given TNA’s current standing in the professional wrestling universe, they cannot stand to loose precious advertising dollars.

So in effect, TNA has to work twice as hard as the WWE in providing a product that will attract more viewers and eventually gain the company more money.  This is why a lot of fans will stay on TNA’s case…they do have a point to prove and for the most part, they celebrate mediocrity.

The WWE, on the other hand, suffers from a different problem.

RAW , the WWE’s flagship show has been on air for 17 years and two months.  For most of that time, RAW was broadcast on the USA Network, the cable television station that still serves as their home today. 

The show has consistently brought in high ratings for the USA Network and literally dominates the coveted male 18-49 demographic on Monday nights.

Because of its history and longevity, and due to the fact that the show has run without serious competition for 10 years, RAW does not have to have the best writing, booking, or creative direction.  RAW could literally showcase two hours of Quinn Gammon and Siva Prasad doing the lindy hop, and it would still average a 3.4 in the ratings.

This is why some fans are pissed at RAW’s current direction.  Check the ratings from the last four weeks, including the guest hosts for those particular episodes:

·        March 1 — Cheech and Chong — 3.7

·        March 8 — Criss Angel — 3.4

·        March 15 — “Stone Cold” Steve Austin — 3.7

·        March 22 — Pete Rose — 3.2

At first look, we would assume that the WWE is probably not worried about this number at all.   RAW will continue to be a ratings beast, and even on their worst night they are still leading the pack in their target demographic and even in the ratings during their time slot.

Then again, is this number somewhat indicative of the direction of their product?

Notice that RAW jumped three tenths in ratings points with the highly publicized guest hosting of “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, then dropped sharply with Pete Rose’s guest hosting duties this past Monday.  It is very possible that the show lost viewers to another program or show on another network.

Or, there is a strong possibility that fans were turned off by the lack of Stone Cold’s “presence” during last week’s show and in turn decided to steer clear of the past Monday’s show.  That’s what I believe happened, but that’s just me.

If I were an executive in the WWE, I would be somewhat concerned either way.  The 3.2 ratings point they received has so far been their lowest rating for the 2010 season, and it is unlikely that they company will see a rating this low again anytime soon.

It’s still a hard pill to swallow in light of the company’s flagship show receiving such a low rating on the go-home show before their largest pay per view of the year.  Not to mention, this past Monday’s show did way below the WWE’s average for the 2010 season (3.6).

We’ve already acknowledged the fact that RAW could suck balls and still manage a decent rating, but it has to hurt to somebody’s feelings to put on a decent show only to receive a piss poor rating.  Ask anybody in TNA, they’ll tell you what it feels like.

Ratings are still about money, so with Wrestlemania 26 looming over the horizon the WWE is probably not all that concerned with the low rating.  Unlike TNA, the WWE tours several times a week, has three other sources of television revenue, and dabbles in the music and film aspects of the entertainment. 

The company also receives tons of revenue from selling merchandise, and probably gets way more money from advertisers.

Unfortunately for us, the product can still suck balls and they’d still be rolling in dough.  Remember the XFL and the WBF?

And that’s another reason why some fans are so hard on TNA; the WWE already has access to the golden goose, while TNA is still reaching for the skies.  Facing such an adversary means the company will have to work twice as hard just to get those high ratings in key demographics.

In other words, TNA’s “A+” work is comparable to the WWE’s “C” work.  So imagine how pissed off fans can get when TNA constantly parades a “D+” around like it just won a pie eating contest at the State Fair.

But how is it we label TNA’s product as “D+” work?

The ratings.

If you go back and peruse some of my previous articles, you’ll get an idea of what TNA could do to get better ratings.  I’m no Jim Cornette, nor have I ever worked in the business. 

However, as a fan that lived through the Monday Night Wars, and as a fan that has invested time and money consistently into pro wrestling, I fancy myself on being able at least rationalize what could and could not work for any given company.

For example, I wrote long ago that TNA should consider a RAW -esque model and do live shows one week and taped shows the next.  Several months later, TNA does exactly that and also moves the show to Monday nights. 

The company recognizes what should happen for its success, but they cannot get sloppy or lazy for one moment if they ever expect to break 2.0 in the ratings.  As great as this past Monday’s show may have been in the eyes of the fans, that 0.86 says otherwise and the company is well aware of it.

The bottom line is that if we want either company to do well, we have to take the ratings system into consideration.  As flawed as it is, as outdated as it is, it is currently the only way most folks in the entertainment business gauge their profit margins.

If more people watch the product, particularly families with Nielsen boxes or diaries, then the better the show will do in the ratings.  The better the ratings, the more networks can charge for commercials.  The more they charge for commercials, the more money the network and the product receives.

If the company receives more money from their product, then they can afford to do more with the product (such as tour routinely, hire more wrestlers for their roster, design better sets and update their broadcasting equipment, etc.).  The better the company’s product, the better the ratings will be.

Hakuna matata, the circle of life continues.

*Russo, Vince.  Rope Opera: How WCW Killed Vince Russo .  Toronto: ECW Press, 2010.