Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Impact Wrestling 2012 Year In Ratings: Facts and Charts


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
20 replies to this topic

#1 Darren Grett

Darren Grett

    Site Admin

  • Administrators
  • 8,656 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:08 PM

As we just finished kicking off the first Impact Wrestling episode of 2013, it's time to look back at the ratings for 2012 which have been a hot debate here and on many other wrestling websites.

Below are some visual charts comparing 2011 ratings to 2012 ratings. You can click on the thumbnail for a larger view.

2011vs2012ratings.jpg


Below is chart comparing the year to year average rating for Impact Wrestling from 2006 through 2012.

2006-2012ratings.jpg


Facts About This Year's TNA Impact Wrestling Ratings:
  • Impact has not had this many episodes that drew less than a 1.1 since 2007.
  • Impact has not had this many episodes that drew less than a 1.0 since 2006.
  • Impact has not had a year-to-year rating average this low since 2006.
  • Impact Wrestling lost an average of 13% of it's Nielson ratings number in 2012.
  • Impact Wrestling lost an average of 19% of it's entire viewer demographic in 2012.
  • Impact rating dropped on the very first episode that was not written by Vince Russo. The first episode written solely by new creative team of Bruce Prichard, Dave Lagana and crew fell from a 1.19 to a 1.0 rating.
  • Vince Russo's highest impact rating of the year was a 1.35. The new creative team's highest impact rating in 2012 was a 1.15 rating.
  • Impact lost almost 17.8% of its viewers in just 7 episodes after Russo left the company.
  • Impact in 2012 had only 9 episodes out of the year that drew a 1.1 or greater rating. 6 out of the 9 episodes were written by Vince Russo.
  • April 12 - May 3 episodes of Impact, TNA had their first consecutive episodes of Impact Wrestling that scored less than a 1.0 rating since the Monday Night Wars of 2010. This string of episodes did not compete against the NFL, No SpikeTV blackout on Time Warner Cable and didn't compete against any new shows.
Debunking the NFL Myth:
Impact scored a higher rating during the first episode against NFL Thursday night football than the previous week without NFL competition. September 6 episode drew a 0.94 rating. September 13 episode against the NFL drew a 0.97 rating. The second week of NFL competition Impact drew a 1.01 rating. Higher than the first week of the two shows competing in the same time slot.

The last few episodes of Impact Wrestling in 2012 did not compete against NFL's Thursday night football and still failed to score anything higher than a 0.99 rating.

The Debate On The 8pm Timeslot Continues:
The debate on how the 8pm timeslot starting in May 31 continues. There is evidence supporting both sides of the debate. Most Impact shows before May 31 scored a 1.0 rating an above which is still below the average rating for Impact Wrestling. On the other hand, 4 out of 22 episodes of Impact Wrestling before the time change scored less than a 1.0 rating.

The Silver Lining Of Impact Moving To 8pm:
While some may say that the nail on the coffin was the move to 8pm starting May 31 2012, SpikeTV did increase on average 20-28% during the timeslot change. During the first few weeks of the year, UFC Unleashed was still being aired sporadically on the 8pm timeslot followed by a steady rotation of re-run Spike branded reality shows. The move to 8pm may not have been a major relief that some Impact fans were hoping for but it clearly has helped SpikeTV's bottom line when it comes to the prime time slot.

Special thanks go out to forum member Christian Parazulli for compiling most of the data used in this news bit.

#2 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:25 PM

Debunking the NFL Myth:
Impact scored a higher rating during the first episode against NFL Thursday night football than the previous week without NFL competition. September 6 episode drew a 0.94 rating. September 13 episode against the NFL drew a 0.97 rating. The second week of NFL competition Impact drew a 1.01 rating. Higher than the first week of the two shows competing in the same time slot.

The last few episodes of Impact Wrestling in 2012 did not compete against NFL's Thursday night football and still failed to score anything higher than a 0.99 rating.

The Debate On The 8pm Timeslot Continues:
The debate on how the 8pm timeslot starting in May 31 continues. There is evidence supporting both sides of the debate. Most Impact shows before May 31 scored a 1.0 rating an above which is still below the average rating for Impact Wrestling. On the other hand, 4 out of 22 episodes of Impact Wrestling before the time change scored less than a 1.0 rating.

The Silver Lining Of Impact Moving To 8pm:
While some may say that the nail on the coffin was the move to 8pm starting May 31 2012, SpikeTV did increase on average 20-28% during the timeslot change. During the first few weeks of the year, UFC Unleashed was still being aired sporadically on the 8pm timeslot followed by a steady rotation of re-run Spike branded reality shows. The move to 8pm may not have been a major relief that some Impact fans were hoping for but it clearly has helped SpikeTV's bottom line when it comes to the prime time slot.

Special thanks go out to forum member Christian Parazulli for compiling most of the data used in this news bit.



1 - That's not much of a difference between a .97 and a 1.04? Both average out to a 1.00. They were still losing a small portion of their audience against NFL Thursday night football. You are right in saying there was no NFL game but there were still a couple college bowl games.

2 - The time change I agree with. 8 PM does not seem to click. But if you are saying that, although the 8 pm time slot is hurting TNA, but not hurting Spike TV. Then what is there to complain about? Spike TV is happy that they are getting viewers for that 8 pm slot compared to what they usually get from a repeat of CSI or UFC unleashed.

Edited by Big Lou, 04 January 2013 - 07:55 PM.


#3 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

Facts About This Year's TNA Impact Wrestling Ratings:

  • Impact has not had this many episodes that drew less than a 1.1 since 2007.
  • Impact has not had this many episodes that drew less than a 1.0 since 2006.
  • Impact has not had a year-to-year rating average this low since 2006.
  • Impact Wrestling lost an average of 13% of it's Nielson ratings number in 2012.
  • Impact Wrestling lost an average of 19% of it's entire viewer demographic in 2012.
  • Impact rating dropped on the very first episode that was not written by Vince Russo. The first episode written solely by new creative team of Bruce Prichard, Dave Lagana and crew fell from a 1.19 to a 1.0 rating.
  • Vince Russo's highest impact rating of the year was a 1.35. The new creative team's highest impact rating in 2012 was a 1.15 rating.
  • Impact lost almost 17.8% of its viewers in just 7 episodes after Russo left the company.
  • Impact in 2012 had only 9 episodes out of the year that drew a 1.1 or greater rating. 6 out of the 9 episodes were written by Vince Russo.
  • April 12 - May 3 episodes of Impact, TNA had their first consecutive episodes of Impact Wrestling that scored less than a 1.0 rating since the Monday Night Wars of 2010. This string of episodes did not compete against the NFL, No SpikeTV blackout on Time Warner Cable and didn't compete against any new shows.



I have to be honest. PLEASE, do not take this the wrong way. Please do not take this the wrong way but reading this, I definitely sense more of an agenda driven ideology that favors Vince Russo over the current regime.


Here are my questions of Russo / Prichard and the ratings effect:

How does the general audience know the difference between a Russo produced show and a Prichard produced show?

Outside of the wrestling world in the IWC, most general viewers never heard of the guy.

Why can't someone say, "Hey, since TNA started listening to the IWC and started pushing younger talent like Robert Roode, Austin Aries and James Storm, the ratings have gone down." Why can't I say that? There is a correlation to the lower ratings going hand in hand to young guys like Roode, Storm and Aries being the focal point for TNA.

In the past 2 years they have pushed more younger guys. Why can't I make that case in saying that the television viewers are not latching on to new, fresh face wrestlers?

WWE ratings have been down as well. Why is not fair to say that wrestling in general is going down and there is a lack of interest in wrestling compared to what is was back in the attitude era, Monday night wars from 1996 - 2001.

I am sorry, I don't see Russo having this magical power over viewers. That's giving the man too much credit. He was still in TNA back in 2010 when they went up against WWE Raw for the new Monday Night War and were getting a 0.6 for a couple of weeks until TNA went back to Thursdays. Russo was still there.

Again, please don't take this the wrong but just what came to mind when reading this.

Edited by Big Lou, 04 January 2013 - 07:52 PM.


#4 Paco

Paco

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 121 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:05 PM

This year was bad for wrestling company's rating.. And that's not the result of a bad product.

Posted Image


#5 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:07 PM

I saw this at 411wrestling earlier in the week, it is a look at the TNA ratings for the past 6 years:
Year by year breakdown
* 2007 - 1.05 rating
* 2008 - 1.06 rating
* 2009 - 1.15 rating (pre-Hogan)
* 2010 - 1.06 rating (includes switch to Monday nights & switch back to Thursdays)
* 2011 - 1.17 rating
* 2012 - 1.02 rating (1.07 first-half, 0.97 second-half)
Credit: 411wrestling


I am an online wrestling fan / IWC guy myself. I love being online talking about wrestling.

More fans thought the worst times for TNA - creatively - were when Hogan and Bischoff arrived in 2010. Fans, IWC hated the TNA years of 2010 and 2011. I mean they hated TNA in 2010 and 2011.

In 2012, TNA regained the online community again. More fans online were beginning to like the product, coincidentally the ratings went down.

I am not just including fans from tnainsider, I am also including fans who go and talk about wrestling on every other wrestling site available.

Edited by Big Lou, 04 January 2013 - 08:09 PM.


#6 waytoomuch

waytoomuch

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 406 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

like the homie big lou said, the report looks like russo propaganda bcuz in 2012 wuzn't russo no longer in power? correct me if i'm wrong but didn't bruce prichard bcum tna head writer around october 2011 around bfg 2011??? if so then how is russo gettin credit 4 writin shows in 2012 wen prichard wuz the head man by then?

#7 Killer Queen

Killer Queen

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,189 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:28 PM

How does the general audience know the difference between a Russo produced show and a Prichard produced show?


They don't

Outside of the wrestling world in the IWC, most general viewers never heard of the guy.


I wouldn't say never heard, because his name is brought up a lot in retrospective by both WWE & TNA. It also wasn't that long ago that people were chanting "fire Russo" (Although it was the same marks attending the iMPACT Zone everyweek). Aside from that, your right

Why can't someone say, "Hey, since TNA started listening to the IWC and started pushing younger talent like Robert Roode, Austin Aries and James Storm, the ratings have gone down." Why can't I say that? There is a correlation to the lower ratings going hand in hand to young guys like Roode, Storm and Aries being the focal point for TNA.


Because that would be too simple of a explanation, one that could be debated at that. Fact is, Russo has a proven track record which dates all the way back to the original Monday Night Wars. I remember when marks were bashing TNA to no end about how TNA's ratings sucked under Russo. They said that TNA would improve in ratings the moment they fired Russo, and got better writers. Funny how the ratings only get worser when they get "better writers", and get rid of Russo. a consistant 1.2, hell, 1.1, which at one point seemed like a disappointment, now all of a sudden seems like something TNA can't accomplish, even if their TV deal depended on it

In the past 2 years they have pushed more younger guys. Why can't I make that case in saying that the television viewers are not latching on to new, fresh face wrestlers?


Sorry, but the likes of Aries, Storm & Roode are not "young" by any means. These guys are experienced veterans that have worked their way up to the main event with consistent, proper buildup. They still have the big names that everyone knows (Hardy as World champ, Hogan, RVD, Team 3D, Anderson, Sting, Angle), while incorprating these guys as the next set of guys, nothing has changed.

WWE ratings have been down as well. Why is not fair to say that wrestling in general is going down and there is a lack of interest in wrestling compared to what is was back in the attitude era, Monday night wars from 1996 - 2001.


If you want to sum up TNA's ratings failure for the entire 2012, on WWE's failure, even though their is clear evidence here that TNA's ratings stardted to go down the drain the moment Russo left (thus, meaning a new direction), then there is a black whole in your logic

I am sorry, I don't see Russo having this magical power over viewers..


He must have something since he delivers numbers, which is top priority. TNA signed Prichard in hopes of bringing in better numbers, and they failed in 2012, fact.

Use your friends, and be good to your enemies; so they'll become your friends, and you can use them too


#8 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:46 PM

They don't



I wouldn't say never heard, because his name is brought up a lot in retrospective by both WWE & TNA. It also wasn't that long ago that people were chanting "fire Russo" (Although it was the same marks attending the iMPACT Zone everyweek). Aside from that, your right



Because that would be too simple of a explanation, one that could be debated at that. Fact is, Russo has a proven track record which dates all the way back to the original Monday Night Wars. I remember when marks were bashing TNA to no end about how TNA's ratings sucked under Russo. They said that TNA would improve in ratings the moment they fired Russo, and got better writers. Funny how the ratings only get worser when they get "better writers", and get rid of Russo. a consistant 1.2, hell, 1.1, which at one point seemed like a disappointment, now all of a sudden seems like something TNA can't accomplish, even if their TV deal depended on it



Sorry, but the likes of Aries, Storm & Roode are not "young" by any means. These guys are experienced veterans that have worked their way up to the main event with consistent, proper buildup. They still have the big names that everyone knows (Hardy as World champ, Hogan, RVD, Team 3D, Anderson, Sting, Angle), while incorprating these guys as the next set of guys, nothing has changed.



If you want to sum up TNA's ratings failure for the entire 2012, on WWE's failure, even though their is clear evidence here that TNA's ratings stardted to go down the drain the moment Russo left (thus, meaning a new direction), then there is a black whole in your logic



He must have something since he delivers numbers, which is top priority. TNA signed Prichard in hopes of bringing in better numbers, and they failed in 2012, fact.


What I mean by young wrestlers are guys who were never stars in the WWE but have been made stars by TNA. Roode, Storm and Aries are still young stars; fresh faced stars that have never appeared in the WWE.

But then explain to me the Monday Night Wars between TNA and RAW from Jan 2010 that lasted for a couple of weeks with TNA and, Russo still working there, getting a .6 each week until going back to Thursdays?

Edited by Big Lou, 04 January 2013 - 08:51 PM.


#9 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:49 PM

like the homie big lou said, the report looks like russo propaganda bcuz in 2012 wuzn't russo no longer in power? correct me if i'm wrong but didn't bruce prichard bcum tna head writer around october 2011 around bfg 2011??? if so then how is russo gettin credit 4 writin shows in 2012 wen prichard wuz the head man by then?


I think you are right. Prichard and Lagana arrived in 2011. They were a part of the writing team with Russo. Shouldn't Lagana and Prichard get credit for the 2011 ratings as well?

Also, Bischoff and Hogan arrived in 2010 and the ratings were still respectable for TNA. Heck, some of Hogan segments were getting 1.3 rating during in his early start with the company. Why don't they get the credit?

Edited by Big Lou, 04 January 2013 - 08:49 PM.


#10 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:56 PM

This year was bad for wrestling company's rating.. And that's not the result of a bad product.


For me, both companies listening to the IWC and that is the reason. I think it us.

Eric Bischoff made the statement last year saying that the internet makes up 10% of the audience and that is why you cannot pay attention to what they want. To small of a sample to improve your product.

Also, Prichard may not be delivering the ratings but he has increased the ppv buyrates. According to the reports, the TNA "b-show" ppv's are doing 11,000 buys compared to the 7,000 under the Russo days.

Edited by Big Lou, 04 January 2013 - 09:02 PM.


#11 Mr.Anderson

Mr.Anderson

    Pro Wrestling Is Real... People Are Fake!

  • News Contributor
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:20 PM

But then explain to me the Monday Night Wars between TNA and RAW from Jan 2010 that lasted for a couple of weeks with TNA and, Russo still working there, getting a .6 each week until going back to Thursdays?


That was direct competition. Not like the NFL, where only a portion of the fans watch both wrestling and football.

Also, Prichard may not be delivering the ratings but he has increased the ppv buyrates. According to the reports, the TNA "b-show" ppv's are doing 11,000
buys compared to the 7,000 under the Russo days.


Yeah. Reports that have no credibility.

Posted Image


#12 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

That was direct competition. Not like the NFL, where only a portion of the fans watch both wrestling and football.



Yeah. Reports that have no credibility.



I get my reports from Dave Meltzer. Whether you want to believe him or not is within your right. I do believe him. And he has suggested that the TNA buyrates have been slightly higher in 2012 than in comparison to other years.

#13 crimson mask

crimson mask

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:05 PM

Did you guys see TNA in the near future hitting the panic botton and calling Vince russo back to write the show??

2013_08_28_12_31_23_1.jpg


#14 Big Lou

Big Lou

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:24 PM

Did you guys see TNA in the near future hitting the panic botton and calling Vince russo back to write the show??


I say no. Too many people in TNA against Russo for him to be brought back (Bischoff, Hogan, Spike TV president).

#15 Darren Grett

Darren Grett

    Site Admin

  • Administrators
  • 8,656 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 02:40 AM

I have to be honest. PLEASE, do not take this the wrong way. Please do not take this the wrong way but reading this, I definitely sense more of an agenda driven ideology that favors Vince Russo over the current regime.


Here are my questions of Russo / Prichard and the ratings effect:

How does the general audience know the difference between a Russo produced show and a Prichard produced show?


The general audience wouldn't know. Then again, the general audience is watching impact far less than they were during 2011.

Why can't someone say, "Hey, since TNA started listening to the IWC and started pushing younger talent like Robert Roode, Austin Aries and James Storm, the ratings have gone down." Why can't I say that? There is a correlation to the lower ratings going hand in hand to young guys like Roode, Storm and Aries being the focal point for TNA.

In the past 2 years they have pushed more younger guys. Why can't I make that case in saying that the television viewers are not latching on to new, fresh face wrestlers?


Roode and Storm have been focal points in TNA for years in the tag division. From the eyes of casual channel flipping fans, I doubt they see any correlation.




WWE ratings have been down as well. Why is not fair to say that wrestling in general is going down and there is a lack of interest in wrestling compared to what is was back in the attitude era, Monday night wars from 1996 - 2001.


TNA's ratings have unfortuntely fallen much faster than WWE's ratings even when you take into account the third hour. WWE has had a steady ratings decrease for many years now. It's really nothing new.


I saw this at 411wrestling earlier in the week, it is a look at the TNA ratings for the past 6 years:
Year by year breakdown
* 2007 - 1.05 rating
* 2008 - 1.06 rating
* 2009 - 1.15 rating (pre-Hogan)
* 2010 - 1.06 rating (includes switch to Monday nights & switch back to Thursdays)
* 2011 - 1.17 rating
* 2012 - 1.02 rating (1.07 first-half, 0.97 second-half)
Credit: 411wrestling


I am an online wrestling fan / IWC guy myself. I love being online talking about wrestling.

More fans thought the worst times for TNA - creatively - were when Hogan and Bischoff arrived in 2010. Fans, IWC hated the TNA years of 2010 and 2011. I mean they hated TNA in 2010 and 2011.

In 2012, TNA regained the online community again. More fans online were beginning to like the product, coincidentally the ratings went down.

I am not just including fans from tnainsider, I am also including fans who go and talk about wrestling on every other wrestling site available.


Lots of people have already brought up the correlation between the IWC and ratings. One can easily say that the IWC's opinion on wrestling doesn't matter. That's quite hypocritical for me to say considering this very website's web hits have increased and decreased according to IWC opinion on TNA.

like the homie big lou said, the report looks like russo propaganda bcuz in 2012 wuzn't russo no longer in power? correct me if i'm wrong but didn't bruce prichard bcum tna head writer around october 2011 around bfg 2011??? if so then how is russo gettin credit 4 writin shows in 2012 wen prichard wuz the head man by then?


You need to be very careful here. Propaganda is using lies and half-truths to spread an agenda. These facts are just that, fact; We aren't implying anything and are just posting factual information based on legitimate research; simple as that.

I welcome anyone to find anything and refute any so called false claims made here. If there are any incorrect claims, you can be rest assured that they are not intentional. Christian Parazulli, Robert Tilton and myself did the research and the facts in the original post all come out legitimate based on our research.

I think you are right. Prichard and Lagana arrived in 2011. They were a part of the writing team with Russo. Shouldn't Lagana and Prichard get credit for the 2011 ratings as well?

Also, Bischoff and Hogan arrived in 2010 and the ratings were still respectable for TNA. Heck, some of Hogan segments were getting 1.3 rating during in his early start with the company. Why don't they get the credit?


Prichard did not have a writing role until November of 2011. Lagana was not officially brought in until Russo's departure.

Did you guys see TNA in the near future hitting the panic botton and calling Vince russo back to write the show??


No. Call me crazy but i literally see WWE warming up to a Vince Russo return far faster than TNA high level officials are. WWE has featured Vince Russo segments in their last two major DVD releases. The WWE also shelved their longest employed main writer. Not to mention their ratings are dropping.

#16 @GaTechGrad

@GaTechGrad

    Insider

  • Advanced Member
  • 1,872 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:36 AM

I wouldn't be too worried about the slight dip in ratings for 2012. Before, TNA was primarily relying on guys who had made their name long ago and nearing the end of their career. Guys like Booker T, Kevin Nash, Mick Foley, Jeff Jarrett, and Ric Flair. Sure they still have a few active veterans like RVD and Hardy, but TNA has got to be happy that they are continuing to pull around their usual 1.0 rating with their own fresh new stars. 2012 also included the DirectTV/Viacom blackout, which took Impact off the air in a considerable number of homes for weeks.

tna_banner4_zps4e645d94.png
 


#17 patrickaj13

patrickaj13

    Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi

  • Advanced Member
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:45 AM

I say no. Too many people in TNA against Russo for him to be brought back (Bischoff, Hogan, Spike TV president).


I think there'd be a massive uproar by the TNA faithful if Russo was brought back. Who can forget all the calls for his head back in his days as head writer for TNA?

Posted Image

"If you're going to treat people like animals, sooner rather than later they're going to start to behave like animals" - Wade Barrett

"My demons are stronger than ever. This lifetime is harder than ever, but I've become somebody better...somebody better" - Papa Roach


"If only sorrow could build a staircase, and tears could show the way, we would climb our way to heaven, and bring him back home again" - Bring Me The Horizon


#18 Ph3N0M

Ph3N0M

    #87%er4Life

  • Advanced Member
  • 1,656 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

Great write-up. Would have certainly "liked" if we could like admins. Please don't stop doing such write-ups. :thumbsu:


BFG 2012 Trivia
Posted Image

Follow me on Twitter: @Ph3N0M1
I just started using Twitter seriously for the first time. Not much activity there, but it will hopefully pick up soon.
Ring Ka King Episode 1 with English Subtitles
My favorite video game shopping site.
PSN and XboxLive blocked in college.:(

#19 Fyzza

Fyzza

    #Fyzzamania

  • Advanced Member
  • 4,900 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:36 PM

I get my reports from Dave Meltzer. Whether you want to believe him or not is within your right. I do believe him. And he has suggested that the TNA buyrates have been slightly higher in 2012 than in comparison to other years.

That's irrelevant to everything. You're attempting to pass off his bullshit as truth; his claims have no merit as the PPV data is disclosed to ONLY TNA and the PPV companies; I believe there is a non-disclosure agreement between the two parties which would make leaking the data to Meltzer illegal.

Posted Image


"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage


#20 Darren Grett

Darren Grett

    Site Admin

  • Administrators
  • 8,656 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 03:03 PM

I wouldn't be too worried about the slight dip in ratings for 2012. Before, TNA was primarily relying on guys who had made their name long ago and nearing the end of their career. Guys like Booker T, Kevin Nash, Mick Foley, Jeff Jarrett, and Ric Flair. Sure they still have a few active veterans like RVD and Hardy, but TNA has got to be happy that they are continuing to pull around their usual 1.0 rating with their own fresh new stars. 2012 also included the DirectTV/Viacom blackout, which took Impact off the air in a considerable number of homes for weeks.


Booker T, Kevin Nash, Jeff Jarrett and Ric Flair were either not around at all or barely around in 2011.

The blackout also lasted nine full days. That's not even two full weeks. That was two episodes of Impact lost to directv subscribers. This is a reason why it was barely brought up in the fact sheet above. It has almost zero correlation to the rest of the 51 episodes remaining in the year.