TNA Bound For Glory Breaks Challenge TV Viewership Record

The replay of TNA Bound for Glory that aired on Challenge TV in the United Kingdom on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 did the highest viewership in the network’s history. The following was Retweeted by Dixie Carter on Twitter:

 

Download Our Free App

Download our FREE App! Dirt Sheet for iPhone, Android and iPad.

Connect With WNW

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn!

  • _JIM_

    What is TNA doing differently in the U.K. than they are here in the States? Because they sure are over when it comes to the British audience.

    • Ken

      Now I watch my stuff online these days so I may be a little inaccurate here, but here goes…

      They're on freeview TV, unlike WWE which is on Sky and which costs a small fortune.
      They don't insult their audience anywhere near as much as the WWE does.
      They don't tone down their in-ring content anywhere near as much as the WWE does.
      They aren't as self-indulgent as the WWE when it comes to extra-curricular activities – I.E. you watch TNA and you aren't assaulted with "We have this many Farcefook friends", or "Our Twitter-peen is THIS big", or "Please don't be mean to all the little kiddies" after every ad-break.
      They probably don't even HAVE as many ad-breaks to be self-indulgent after (don't know, I watch online).
      They don't waste about a third of their show recapping the other two-thirds of the show, half of which is already a recap of last week's show.

      That applies equally to the US and the UK. The difference isn't what TNA does or doesn't do.
      The difference is more to do with the audience. Over here in the UK we're not as… well, I'm not really sure how to describe it without being insulting, but there's a difference between the average US fan and the average UK fan.
      It's similar to the C.M. Punk thing… we expect respect, and we respect those who respect us. The WWE doesn't.

      • Bault16

        This kid is jaded beyond belief. And your typical snobby Brit.

        • Immy

          Youre*

          • Ken

            Actually no, he was correct with what he wrote, however there should have been a comma and a lower case 'a' instead of a capital.

            'This kid is jaded beyond belief, and your typical snobby Brit.'

            That's what he wanted to write. The your/you're thing is the obvious way to go but in this case it's not the mistake.
            If that was the mistake though, if he'd have been wanting to write 'and you're a typical snobby Brit.' then in addition to ending with a comma the first part should have been 'You are jaded beyond belief', leading ultimately to 'You, kid, are jaded beyond belief, and you're a typical snobby Brit.'

            The thing is, as I wrote below, I',not snobby, nor am I jaded, and actually I'm not a kid. I'm 36. Probably twice Bault16's age and then some. Old enough to know and use English grammar correctly at least.

        • Ken

          Guilty as charged, except for the bit about being snobby and jaded.

          • Mike Gilreath

            Well said…especially the observations about WWE

        • Jannes

          I am on the "Brit's" team.
          It's all true, what he sais.
          And to let you know, not a "snob" Britt, but a sober Dutch.
          Go TNA!

      • Dude love

        +6? There must be a good number of people from the UK that read this site.

    • Mr.Love

      Ppv are free from what I understand over seas

      • Ken

        Last time I checked TNA PPVs were free along with some lesser WWE PPVs.
        The bigger WWE PPVs were on PPV via Sky Box Office, and WM cost an absolute frikkin' fortune.
        It's all free on the interwebz though, which is great because a lot of it isn't worth paying for these days.

      • smithmiester

        Tna ppv’s are free but they are replayed the Wednesday after they are shown.

        • Wwe4L76

          TNA TNA TNA TNA!

    • Raven

      It’s free and everyone that has a tv can watch it.

  • Robert olley

    Ppv are free here in the uk and when impact and the ppvs are shown its on nights when there nothing on any of the other channels especially when you’ve only got the 60 channels on freeview most of them news.

  • TheQueensArmy

    its free over here, and wwe is, well, not! its expensive to view with your monthly sky bill on top of the £15 PPV's fee.

    and in this day in age, no one has cash to chuck around, plus us british tend to take shows more seriously, and given that wwe is more about cobras, lepracauns, 'supermen', and all that kinda stuff, it doesnt tend to sit well with your average adult brit. whereas, IMO americans seem to still find enjoyment, even they dont like the show as a whole (a compliment by the way!), americans seem to be more tolerant and accepting, a ''this is how it is so make the most of it'' attitude.

    • Raven

      Nonsense. Doesn’t sit well with the average Brit? Have you seen the numbers for WWE? Those people that have to pay to watch still watch. And more than TNA. Don’t make out that it’s anything to do with TNA’s product. It’s free to watch it. End of reasons.

  • Chris Corkhill

    I watch both tna and wwe and it won’t bother me of I miss tna one week. The fact is challenge tv isn’t a highly watched channel it has 20 year old game shows on it so its highest viewer rate isn’t going to be that high. If I didn’t know better I would still say that wwe is still watched more over here than tna the only difference is tna is easier to watch because the channel it’s on but k have to watch raw and smack down every week and I pay for all ppvs when there on at £15 a go but I’m still not bothered about missing tna because there isn’t much to miss. If I read on here that a ppv was good I’ll watch it because its free anyway if not I’ll just read the results on here. So there not doing anything just challenge tv have a low bar that was always going to be easy to hop over

  • Mark3man

    I also think we Brits are more fans of sports entertainment than wrestling, we don’t really have amature wrestling so we like the story lines and over the top spots which tna have more of.

    • mark3man

      My comment is also saying why TNA does ok over here….Its still no where near WWE though.
      If I show any none WWE fans TNA, they look at it and go, 'Wow is that Hulk Hogan, is he back in WWF' and then I need to explain what TNA is and why its on a channel that shows game shows that are as old as Hulk., and that its not WWF and no the Bushwackers are not in TNA etc etc…..Point been, WWE still number one, but TNA is more access able over here and it actually has an ok product that will keep most none IWC wrestling fans(and still lots of IWC fans)entertained and it has Hulk for all the other people that were fans in the late 80's.

  • peter

    The simple fact is that it is free, and people will watch any crap when it is so. You have to pay to watch WWE and thousands do including myself .You cannot compere ratings from a channel that is free and one that you have to pay for. Also what is this garbage about us Brits know TNA is better because we're smarter than you Americans, as a proud Brit I would like to apologize for these stupid and stuck up comments.

  • Thommo

    I think at least 1 reason why TNA does better over here than in the US is because the in ring product is or can be very good – their roster has some serious talent there. And star power.

    And they like WWE only come over maybe once per year and as others have said they're free to watch (TNA) – but the attendances etc in the UK by TNA in recent history is probably down to a more adult themed, higher octane in ring show. I mean if there's 1 thing British people like to do and if you live over here you'll know this – we love to drink and go a bit mental on weekends! So we gravitate to things that are more 'brash or louder' rather than what's better. Better is subjective anyhow….

    As a Brit myself I know I only skim WWE these days for the CM Punk segments and tend to prefer TNA but truth be told wrestling today is nothing compared to what it used to be.