TNA beats RAW & SD [TNA and RAW Ratings] UPDATED

[Official Ratings are all in]

Last Monday's TNA iMPACT! scored a 0.86 (rounded to a 0.9) cable rating with 1.2 million viewers. This is a slight, 2% increase over last week's 0.84 cable rating and 1.1 million viewers.

TNA iMPACT! Show Breakdown: The show's first hour did 0.83, rising to 0.87 for the second hour. The opening segment with Bischoff and Jarrett was the second-lowest quarter hour of the show at 0.79. This picked up to 0.93 for Q3 with the announcement of Team Hogan vs. Team Flair for Lockdown. There was a big drop to 0.76 for the Tomko-Rob Terry match, the lowest quarter of the night, but by Q6 had peaked at 0.97 with the end of the Jarrett-Foley match, RVD and Jeff Hardy's promo, and Hogan and Bischoff backstage. After that high, the show went downhill, with 0.85 in Q8 and a 0.81 rating for the overrun.

RAW's ratings are now official and the drop on USA's ratings is confirmed. RAW gained a 3.24 (3.2) cable rating, down from last week's 3.7 rating.In fact, the show averaged a 2.67 among the M18-49 demo (down -12% from last week) and a 2.35 in M18-34 (down -7%) . The total amount of viewers amounts to 4.5 million which is a drop of 20% (1 million viewers less).

RAW's drops in ratings and viewers are said to be worrying since this is the last episode before WrestleMania.

TNA Beat RAW and Smackdown on Bravo - Dixie Carter

On Bravo, TNA beat both SmackDown and RAW according to TNA President Dixie Carter who noted on her Twitter that, on Bravo, TNA broke a record of viewership: "The week of 3/14, TNA iMPACT! had its highest rating ever on Bravo in the UK, beating WWE Raw & Smackdown."

Source: ewrestlingnews.com

wrestlezone.com

Discuss it on the wrestling forum

Comments

Comment #1

after reading this and the one about WWE's creative team watching TNA, I realise that what I beleive (i.e. that TNA will never beat WWE but will be a direct competition) might be true in 4-5 months time. PROOF? well seeing that the biggest WWE event is soo close and RAW drops all those viewers :S

Posted by Mortal Van Dam on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #2

lol only in uk..yea that says alot..not.

Posted by on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #3

#2, the Bravo one where TNA beat WWE, yes but the other ratings are the usual ratings - TNA did not beat WWE but TNA increased whilst RAW decreased

Posted by Mortal Van Dam on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #4

The UK has a larger fanbase than you think, bring us a PPV for god sakes WWE!

But congratulations to TNA.

Posted by Oliver Andrew Black on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #5

Only TNA is shown on Bravo a free channel. WWE is on sky sports in the UK, a subscription channel. Not a true comparison at all.

Posted by D0C on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #6

TNA beats RAW & SD? Are you blind or what? they continues having more than 4 times more audience, do you call it BEAT? hahahahaha

Who post this news? I think you get paid by TNA...

Posted by lol? on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #7

Just wait till' after Wrestlemania

Posted by EddieRox on Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Comment #8

Yes, Ugly Van Dam gets paid by TNA to brainwash TWG.

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #9

Im going to have to say that TNA had a much more interesting show then Raw did i mean Rvd+Jeff hardy =win come on anyone can see that,

Posted by Mexican Afro on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #10

@comment #3, then why did you title it "TNA beats RAW & SmackDown" if it's a lie?

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #11

First, to the lunatic writer of this article, stop being a sensationalist and get your facts straight before you report them, especially on such a touch subject as TNA vs WWE. Not only are these statistics not true, but in no way do they prove TNA beat WWE. While Raw ratings dipped slightly this does not prove TNA beat WWE. In fact, WWE scored 4 times the viewers as TNA on this duel.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #12

You can get TNA programming free in the UK...
You can't with the WWE, nuff said.
Source: I live in the UK...

Posted by Mitsuomi Takayanagi on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #13

the headline's claim is the usual sensationalist nonsense

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #14

he is proud of being a lier

Posted by haha on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #15

TNA! Give it 1-2 years time! It will be the dominate Wrestling Federation in the world

Posted by Cross The Line! on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #16

People at TheWrestlingGame should pull this article immediately due to its false information, and replace it with a large headline "WWE Beats TNA Again." Also funny is the fact that this buffoon cites that TNA beat Smackdown's show for this week. That's funny because it didn't happen yet. Kind of hard to beat ratings that don't exist yet.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #17

While it is true that TNA is free to view here in the UK with WWE shows in the main being on subscription Channels. All that means is that TNA will begin to gain a larger audience in the UK as time passes as for the shows It seems to someone who watches both that TNA is aiming for a more adult audience while the WWE is going for a younger audience. We will just have to wait which approach works.

Posted by Albannach on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #18

TNA! Give it 1-2 years time! It will be just a memory while WWE remains the dominate Wrestling Federation in the world

Posted by Screw your Line! on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #19

wwe as pg , or tna hmm if i was sum1 who just STARTED to watch wrestling shows which 1 shud i pick

Posted by tre on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #20

As a response to Comment #19. I think the issue your confusing is that of PG vs PG-13 - essentially blood or bloodless. The reality is you should be picking which show you watch for the storylines it provides you. That being said, if you think wrestling is about some dude trying to be Ric Flair and another dude trying to be Hogan, and call it wrestling, you are gravely mistaking.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #21

Its funny how people can be quick to assume these statistics as untrue. Without full knowledge I would love to see how some people could back their statement up with that and prove the statistic's wrong.

On the other side, seems to me he was comparing rating loss to rating gains, and in that aspect yes, TNA did beat WWE. As for an unfair comparison? Well to be honest, it would be impossible to have a complete fair comparison. And to have a complete fair comparison would near impossible so even though wwe had to be paid, I'd say this comparison is valid in broadcasting terms.

Posted by Ryder on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #22

TNA is getting better know with Hogan, RVD, and Jeff Hardy, WWE is just getting more and more boring as the time passes, I just to like WWE when they just to do hardcore matches but know its just boring.

Posted by gabino on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #23

TNA is getting better now with Hogan, RVD, and Jeff Hardy, WWE is just getting more and more boring as the time passes, I used to like WWE when they just to do hardcore matches but know its just boring.

Posted by gabino on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #24

TNA is getting better now with Hogan, RVD, and Jeff Hardy, WWE is just getting more and more boring as the time passes, I used to like WWE when they used to do hardcore matches but know its just boring.

Posted by gabino on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #25

@Ryder... Raw = 3.24 TNA = .86... Do you need to see any more proof? Even if WWE lost viewership, TNA didn't gain the amount lost, thus, you could hardly consider this a win for TNA any way you look at it. I'd respond to your last sentence, but I'd have to understand it to do so.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #26

Gee, my bullsh*t meter has gone off the charts. How can the writer say TNA beat RAW & Smackdown in ratings when the article said the final ratings for Raw haven't come in yet? Jumping the gun abit much?

Posted by Chronic Jay on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #27

obviously,most of the people hear are childish wwe fans

1)their both fake
2)TNA can hide the fakeness better
3)TNA has the superstars that used to make wwe good

Posted by DWK on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #28

Ok first of all the US ratings WWE still ahead TNA,but who cares TNA was still good. Second you all are crying like babies and calling it a lie or a fake when dixie herself commented on it on her Twitter.Third,you all need to learn to read or stop jumping the gun and getting your diapers in a knot,re-read the RAW para slowly and closely now,mainly the last half of the first line.............E A R L Y numbers show a drop on USA's ratings.

Posted by RavenEX on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #29

The rating is up 2% from the previous week.
The demos were all up:
-- M18-49 did a 0.85, up +18%
-- M18-34 did a 0.86, up +37%
-- P18-49 did a 0.53, up +15

- WWE on USA averaged a 2.67
- among the M18-49 demo (down -12% vs. last week)
- with a 2.35 in M18-34 (down -7%)
- 4.5 million viewers (down -19%)

TNA had alot of fluctuation in their ratings from opening 0.79 to 0.93 to 0.73 to 0.97 then ending around 0.8ish

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #30

Don't worry about these idiotic TNA superstars,they are NOTHING compered to us in the WWE,Besides if I remember correctly..The reason those ratings suddenly increased was because of there latest "X-WWE superstars" for example Jeff Hardy and RVD and now I'm hearing the true ECW legand is next?

Posted by Chris Jericho on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #31

Technically Jericho,its WWE's loss.They fired us in the first place.Perhaps that maybe the case of the ratings slowly decreasing on WWE and graduely getting higher for TNA.But I don't really care what wrestling company I work for,the fact of the matter is that I was signed up before WWE could even think of bringing me back.

Posted by Rob Van Dam on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #32

But Chris,even if I was to go back to the WWE I wouldn't fit back in.Considering I was beat in my match with HBK at Wrestlemania.But I enjoy doing segments with AJ,plus I've made better freinds.And I'll admit Hulk Hogan my be leading TNA the wrong way.After all I quite liked the six-sided ring.

Posted by Ric Flair on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #33

First of all, I really hate when idotic people post as real people. (No offence TWG, but superstars of the WWE and TNA wouldn't read what goes on here, let alone post comments). Secondlly, the fact of the matter is, WWE lost viewers before their biggest PPV, whereas the complitition gained. No, not in the same numbers, but, it is still worth mentioning. About the last part of the artical, TNA beating RAW and SD! int he UK raitings, coudl it possibly be that the paid channel is somethign most people get in the UK? If it is, the whole "TNA beatign WWE" issue wold be true in that fact. Finally, WWE is catering to childeren lately (the whole PG thing), which may get their attention now, but when they grow up, they will want to see more action. SUch as what TNA offers.

Posted by Feuer on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #34

Im with Feuer on the first half,pretending to be a real person adds to the childish and immaature crap that goes on around here. And the fact that kids watch WWE has been going on since the golden era(with hulk hogan and ric flair and others)befor blood,sex,and drugs became apart of the business. Now no more BNP matches less sex then befor less blood then befor the WWE now is more waterd down then they were in the 70's and 80's they might aswell as have a show on a bible network. TNA even if they tone down most of those things still use them.

Posted by RavenEX on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #35

WOW can you read the FULL ARTICLE? TNA beat Samckdown and RAW on Bravo as the LAST PARAGRAPH SAID ... pfft ... you are unbelieving.

Posted by Mortak Van Dam on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #36

why are people complaining about childish and immature crap on an online videogame?

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #37

Not only storytelling, but in terms of wrestlling too, WWE is the better show.

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #38

#37, I will agree with you that in nearly every case, WWE does have better storytelling abilities (event hough the creative departments has been FALLING ON THEIR FACES for years now), but, have you even WATCHED both shows? To say that WWE is better in wrestling is totally incorrect! Impact, TNA's only non-PPV show usually has better matches then 90-95% of WWE PPV cards. If a televised show (regardless of it being on a channel I have to pay extra for or not) is better then a PPV that I am paying anywhere from $30 to $60 for, I'm sorry but to me that dosen't say "better wreslting" too me.

Posted by Feuer on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #39

@OneUp - I like how you compared overall ratings to argue against me when I clearly stated rating loss compared to rating gain. If someone had 100 cookies and dropped to 90 and someone who had 10 gained 30. Well comparing the gains/losses, the person who had 10 won yet you clearly are hell bound on comparing the overall. And as for my last sentence, figures as you couldn't even understand the first one to make a decent argument against it. But for your sake I'll try and break it down to laymen terms. There are too many factors to consider that alter each others ratings that in a real experimental comparison it would be near impossible to compare as each others "environment" is different. Break it down for ya enough or do you just like to argue without an arguement?

Posted by Ryder on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #40

It can't be a fair comparison as Impact is on a different day to raw in the UK so mroe people mgiht be free that day not to mention bravo is af ree channel when you have to pay extra for sky sports

Posted by Arthur Llewellyn on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #41

Some people here are DUMB!!! from when did Mortal Van Dam become DIXIE CARTER to be blamed for quoting what she said i.e. that for her, TNA beat WWE?

Posted by Mortal Van Dam on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #42

What everyone SHOULD be getting from this is that TNA is on a possible verge to being just as good, maybe even better, than what the WWE is right now. I think everyone can see the possibility, no matter how low that chance seems right now.

Overall it's still a matter of hype vs. skill. If you believe in the hype, by all means watch WWE. If you want more pure wrestling skill, watch Sunday Night Heat and Velocity. For some reason, pure wrestlers are worse than people with great mic skills. That's where TNA dominates WWE. They have natural skilled wrestlers, and actually decide to use them.

Posted by Falco Fusion on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #43

@Ryder

You are ridiculous. I compare overall numbers because they are the only ones that count. Ratings aren't cookies, they're ratings. WWE lost around .4 in ratings, and TNA gained .06 having a few implications. 1. TNA didn't gain WWE's lost viewers 2. TNA is not the most popular wrestling show on television. Thats what this comes down to and that is all there is to say. In regard to your last statement, I think its more about your lack of ability to communicate ideas at all rather than my lack of an ability to understand them. If you are comparing ratings, it doesn't matter how many supplemental variables exist. The 2 shows are on at the same time on different channels and are both wrestling shows. As far as ratings go, the opportunity to acquire high ratings are the same. In all seriousness, TNA has the same rating as Superstars.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #44

@Mortal: You created a sensationalist headline and that's why people are angry. TNA didn't eclipse WWE's ratings at all, and therefore did not beat them. If you want to isolate ratings by channel in specific regions of the world because it makes you feel better about TNA, be my guest, just don't publish it as fact. Until TNA's overall ratings eclipse WWE Raw's, they will not have "won."

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #45

@Falco Fusion. This is a matter of opinion. WWE pulled shows like Sunday Night Heat and Velocity because nobody watched them. Storylines are not created by in-ring work, but settled by it. Mic work is essentially the only mechanism to get someone over with a crowd, and to get people to believe them. If you don't believe that mic work can create heat watch one of CM Punk's latest promos about Mysterio. Additionally, its not a matter of hype vs skill, its a matter of WWE vs TNA. TNA can hire all of WWE's sloppy seconds who are too lazy to work a celebrity-style travel schedule. Also, in the WWE, for the most part, you see that the most successful people in the company can wrestle and use a mic.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #46

@ The person who pretended to be superstars... Hope you enjoy your fantasy world. Those superstars weren't fired, but left the company. So please, get your facts straight before you post here.

Posted by OneUp on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #47

I am tired of seing this lame news poster, always rounding TNA up and rounding WWE down, you sucks dude, if you don't like that TNA is losing the war, GO CRY HOME

Posted by tired on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #48

<< Also, in the WWE, for the most part, you see that the most successful people in the company can wrestle and use a mic. >> Let's see... Orton - Couldn't use a mic to announce lottery numbers and getting beat on for ten minutes to hit an RKO is hardly what I would call wrestling 'skill'. HHH - Sleeping with the Boss' daughter. Enough said. HBK - Best friend of guy sleeping with the boss' daughter. Undertaker - The Phenom of Merch. Many say he can't wrestle anymore due to bad knees and his mic skills aren't legendary. He sells a LOT of merchandise though and puts butts in seats. Cena - All hear he can't wrestle from anybody that watches WWE. They were chanting it in the crowd Monday. Where does this mic AND wrestling thing kick in again? But anyway.. Don't get me wrong. I like WWE, but its shows of late ar more than lacking. If it weren't for those old senior citizens Flair and Hogan jumping around in their underwear, I would probably watch TNA more often, but I don't except on occasion. TNA and WWE can't be compared as WWE has a core audience. WWE is all many people have had to watch for years since the old Monday Night Wars with WCW. Therefor, their numbers are going to be considerably higher for some time to come. But with TNA going up and WWE going down a week before Wrestlemania, you can bet money Vinnie Mac was yelling, cussing and ready to take some people's heads off their shoulders if it continues.

Posted by MSW on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #49

after reading some of these comment how can you even compare ratings in the uk fairly. when everybody has the free channel which tna is on but everybody doesnt have the pay channel which wwe is on. i just come to the conclusion that ppl want to watch wrestling but cant afford the pay channel so they have to watch that crap so call wrestling show (tna). most of there matches are boring and the storylines need major work.

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #50

@Feurer, if you think TNA wrestles better than WWE than you probably don't know what good wrestling is. WWE is better than TNA in terms of both storytelling AND wrestling. People say WWE seems more fake than TNA but after watching only a few of TNA's shows I saw many mistakes hinting how fake it is. E.g; At Destination X, Daniels held Amazing Red's hand as he was climbing the ropes to deliver a hurracarrana, I noted that straight away. To notice something fake in WWE you have to keep going over it :P
I find WWE's style of wrestling FAR more entertaining than the Barbie style of wrestling Total Nonsense Action does.

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #51

Wow kiddo im impressed ... if you saw 1 TNA show, i think you only saw half a WWE one - how many times, back when chairshots to the head were frequent, did you see a replay of the chair hitting the head? I saw a replay every chairshot but the replay ALWAYS stopped before the hit - WHY BOTHER showing a replay?

Posted by Comment # 53 is DUMB on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #52

TNA never can beat WWE like what WCW did and so the guy like Hulk hogan can cry himself a river

Posted by Bill johnson on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #53

I like Ice-Cream. What?

Posted by The British Hero Mason on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #54

Falco from all the TNA haters that come here half the time they all come back to the same thing which is hogan and bishoff and all the older wrestlers,to them its like styles isnt there or any of the younger guys, they always bring up the older guys so all they see in TNA is them.

Posted by RavenEX on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #55

TNA always beats WWE in the UK because it's free-to-air while WWE is on sky sports, which is a pay channel.

Posted by Hayden Sikh on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #56

bravo isnt free,you still have to suscribe to the package it comes with.

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #57

TNA copycats

Posted by on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #58

i always say that MVD sucks at english, and again he proved me right. i do not think he knows the meaning of the word beat. there r 2 people in a race. racer 1 is winning. racer 1 slows down and racer 2 speeds up, but racer one still wins and BEATS racer 2, MVD would say that racer 2 still beat racer 1. also the people who r pretending to be those tna/wwe people r retarded, Ryder (not zack ryder [the dumbass here that is calling himself ryder]) is more retarded and MVD is most retarded. also MVD should stop being bias. it seems like he is writing mini articles instead of news.

Posted by qasdfg on Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Comment #59

most people in the uk have sky sports

Posted by ppp on Thursday, March 25, 2010

TNA beats RAW & SD [TNA and RAW Ratings] UPDATED

Comments

Comment #1

Comment #2

Comment #3

Comment #4

Comment #5

Comment #6

Comment #7

Comment #8

Comment #9

Comment #10

Comment #11

Comment #12

Comment #13

Comment #14

Comment #15

Comment #16

Comment #17

Comment #18

Comment #19

Comment #20

Comment #21

Comment #22

Comment #23

Comment #24

Comment #25

Comment #26

Comment #27

Comment #28

Comment #29

Comment #30

Comment #31

Comment #32

Comment #33

Comment #34

Comment #35

Comment #36

Comment #37

Comment #38

Comment #39

Comment #40

Comment #41

Comment #42

Comment #43

Comment #44

Comment #45

Comment #46

Comment #47

Comment #48

Comment #49

Comment #50

Comment #51

Comment #52

Comment #53

Comment #54

Comment #55

Comment #56

Comment #57

Comment #58

Comment #59

Leave a comment