how do ratings work?
 

just curious. i saw a promo that said 16 million people tunned in to watch that oliver beane show on fox. 1st off i want to find these 16 million and beat them with the beating stick, 2nd how do they get these numbers?

The best way this can be explained is by reading this page

I think you're using the word "work" a bit loosely. :)

das

i read the page but slighty confused.
what is a people meter? and if its only 5000 people meters. how do tthey get the data from the other millions of people who watch tv?

ratings work def. was a poor choice of words on my part.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/

In short, a small number of people have meters that monitor their viewing at all times. A larger sampling gets diaries by mail to chart their viewing for a week during "Sweeps." These people are chosen so as to statistically represent the population as a whole in such areas as gender, race, income, etc. Back when there were only 3 networks, it did a pretty good job. Now that there are hundreds of channels, many feeding off of a viewership under 1 million people, that statistical error becomes much more significant.

Anyway, when you hear some network promo creaming over ## million people watching their show, they're simply taking the overnight rating and extrapolating how many viewers that likely is. They're not actually counting them all. What makes something qualify for a "new hit drama" promo is still beyond me.

A quick read of the Nielsen site should clear up some of your questions.

das

That sucks. so some smoe in my area is deciding for me in essence what TV shows I watch.
This seems very inaccurate.
Is there no other way?
aren't the signals track/trapped somehow?

There are other ways, but they're expensive and bring up privacy issues. Plus, the networks are well aware of how the current system is lopsided in their favor and are more than willing to continue to foot the bill.

SLOWLY, Nielsen is trying to phase out Sweeps and get more meters in homes, but that's years away.

As for accuracy, if the sample is selected properly, a small number of people should be able to statistically represent the whole with sufficient accuracy. However, with the significant variety of programming out there now, Nielsen's sampling methods seem woefully insufficient.

das

das monkey,
thanks for the answers. I always wondered how the whole rating scheme work. And it really bothers me when crap shows get xx million viewers and the shows I watch get nada.

Why can't the networks just set up a website where the viewer can log in and state what they watched?

Because then Enterprise and Farscape would be the highest rated shows in the history of television. ;)

:lol:

das

The "16 million" figure FOX stated wasn't a rating. A rating is an average of viewership within the time period.

What those sneaks at FOX most likely did was look at how many different individuals tuned in to the show within the half hour.

According to Nielsen, last week "Oliver Beene" averaged almost 8 million viewers throughout the half-hour, but if you look at how many unique viewers watched the show - for even as little as 1 minute - that figure jumps up to 16 million.

Somebody in a Nielsen home could have been spending 1 minute talking about what a crappy show it is and FOX uses it to their advantage.

The man has a point. Note that they always say "800 zillion people <B>tuned in</B>." It doesn't account for how many of them tuned back out after hating it.

das

I say give a new sect of people a chance.. screw the Nielsons.. sample TiVo data for a year and lets see how different ratings are then. You can nearly bet all the cool Sci-Fi shows (like Firefly) that us tech geeks watch would still be on the air. I'm just generalizing TiVo users like myself. I was imagining many of the people with Nielson boxes probably think screwing in a lightbulb is too technical for them, but I'm sure every Nielson family can't be bird brains. Unfortunately the ones that enjoy the TV shows you and I do are probably grossly misrepresented.

Push, Nevada would also be on air still, apparently that was one of the most popular shows via TiVo heh

Nielsen's is a crock but ah well.

5000 total. So that means 1 neilson guy represents 60,000 or so tv watchers. And Networks get ALL their revenue from these numbers? Wonder what they are hiding?

I can't imagine them ever using DVR users for ratings (that are used to lure advertisers). Replay users can automatically skip commercials and I figure TIVO users use the FF button a lot. Not a lot of value to advertisers.

I need to be a neilson family. I can control tv for 60,000
muhahahahaha!
oh the havoc I can create.

From within the industry, I can say that the Nielsens are garbage. Everyone knows it, but everyone accepts it because it would be too costly and too much trouble to do anything about it.

The Nielsens rely mostly on the magical 5000, which they have claimed for years accurately represents a cross section of America. But... it can't. It's like the entertainment lawyer in town who is married to a studio head - she says there is no conflict of interest. Oh, okay...

There is no way regardless of where you put them that 5000 meters can accurately represent over 260 million folks.

Bruce Paltrow and Ed & Marshall (Zwick and Herskowitz) both tried at different times to stage a Nielsen coup, but it fell on deaf ears.

There is evidence that the 5000 are skewed towards the Midwest/Bible belt more "right" side of the country. Case in point: Walker, Texas Ranger runs forever winning its night every week. :)

Anyway, the inaccurate Nielsens have led to bad programming in the sense that studios will develop product that they know (hope) works for that demographic.

Most studios and networks have finally come to ignore the general numbers from Nielsen and concentrate on certain demos. For instance, Judging Amy kills NYPD Blue every week, year in ,year out, BUT the Bochco shows beats JA in the spending-friendly demo of males 18-35 - so, ABC targets those advertisers and makes the same coin as CBS does with their 17-19 share.

FOX has been most succesful in "beating" the Nielsens as they were the first network to target a specific demographic as opposed to the overall ratings. They went after the young viewership which everyone else was ignoring and found that even with a share of only, say, 6 or 8, they were still dominating the young adult demo. So they go to advertisers of young adult product and show them their numbers and thus Fox is able to charge those advertisers the same amount as a big network grabbing a 20 share.

What I don't get is why the advertisers allow it to continue. They pay big bucks on the belief that their product is going out to the right people, but we all know it's a sham. I understand why the networks fight it -- they have everything to gain from the inaccuracy -- but I would think the advertisers would demand a more accurate system of measurement considering what it costs them. The whole system exists because of ad revenue, and those advertisers should have both the ability and the will to make it better. Is there a hidden benefit for them that I'm missing?

das

I think it is either the Ostrich mentality - no one really wants the truth they just want what is safe and accepted.

Or - Emperor's clothes - Madison Ave truly believes the numbers are accurate.

I remember when Ed & Marshall advocated a new system. they offered to pay for an additional 5000 meters - thus doubling the "counters" - themselves, claiming that 10K boxes would give a completely different set of ratings and the Nielsen company said no.

I admire Ed & Marshall's faith that Americans can't be as stupid as the Nielsens show them to be. :)

das

What did Nielsen stand to lose really? Sure it might be a black eye to them, but they end up more accurate (a larger sample size can never be more inaccurate) and it doesn't cost them more money. I don't see how that could have been bad for them.

Mordred