Nielsen Ratings: Fact, Fiction or Wishful Thinking?

Rob Belics · July 1st, 2004, 07:26 AM

These studies are based on at least 100 years and more of study. Your decision is based on what?

Richard Alvarez · July 1st, 2004, 03:43 PM

Article in the paper this morning about how a new "more acurate" system is being installed by Neilsen. This will replace the old diary method. Supposed to be more "accurate".

How appropos.

Keith Loh · July 1st, 2004, 04:23 PM

Richard, which paper?

Richard Alvarez · July 1st, 2004, 05:32 PM

Sorry,
I was reading the Houston Chronicle this morning. Should be online. The thrust of the story was how the new process (Which is undergoing a form of beta testing) was perhaps not reflective of minority viewing habits. It explained how the old interviews to select representative viewwers were going to be dropped, and how the diary logs were not as acurate as the new automated systems. (That was Nielsons point, not mine)

Richard Alvarez · July 1st, 2004, 05:47 PM

Okay team, I want brownie points for effort above and beyond the call here. I went dumpster diving for the article.

In the "OUTLOOK" section of Houston Chronicle is an article written by SUSAN WHITING, who is listed as chief executive officer and president of Niesen Media Research.

Title of the article is "Media are playing the race card in TV ratings".

A relevant paragraph-

"Nielsen Media research is planning to introduce its "people meter" in Los Angeles in July, This electronic data-collection device, which would be placed in the viewers home, is the most reliable efficeint and scientific way to collect TV viewing information. ...'

The article is apparantly addressing objections to the new system being raised by UPN and FOX.

"The people meter electronically monitors what is being watched, and for how long, on the sets of randomly selected Nielsen families. The outdated handwritten diaried now used sometimes missed some viewing because the diary0keeper forgot to write it all down. Unlike the diary, the people meter picks up all that grazing- the five minutes, here, ten minutes there - and many new channels get noticed."

They will still do statistical averaging however... it's really an improvement of viewing habit accuracy - at least that's Nielsens line.

Perhaps someone else can google up a reference to the article on line.

I am going to wash my hands.

Richard

Keith Loh · July 1st, 2004, 05:58 PM

Thanks, Richard.

John Hudson · July 11th, 2004, 03:18 PM

Is there any denial that more people watch Friends, ER and CSI than anything else?

James Emory · July 11th, 2004, 03:39 PM

I think it's safe to say that ALOT of people watch those shows but there's really no way to know just how many.

No wait, the Nielsen group could tell you, they give out exact numbers plus or minus a few. They have two people that travel the entire country with an electronic clip board, like the UPS driver, where EACH and EVERY person in America signs his/her name and what program(s) they watch. What's even more amazing is that they do all of this in one week and then turn right around and do it again each week! These guys are kind of like Santa Claus, but he travels the entire world in one night.

Joe Gioielli · November 29th, 2004, 04:56 PM

As I can't count beyond ten without removing my shoes, I'll leave the math issues to greater minds than mine.

However, I would like to state that I just had the honor of doing a one week online survey of my tv viewing for the Nielsen Media research group.

Ye Gads!

Granted, I admit that my data normally belongs on the skinny ends of the bell curve, but the week they picked, I must have been in a real funk. All I was watching were cartoons and tv shows about media on Trio., with the assorted rerun of "laugh-In" (tinkle! tinkle! tinkle!) thrown in for good measure.

No smart news shows, no high brow black and white films with subtitles, not even "Baywatch" or any other "eye candy" shows. No, Just Bart and Homer, Peter and Stewie, Dickie and Dan.

Soooo, when the tv shows about cartoon characters discussing the place of media in modern society start hitting the air waves, you'll know whom to blame.

Sorry.

OK, one comment about the math. Whan I took stats in college our teacher told us that he believed that the best way to use stats was the same way a drunk uses a lamp-post, more for support than illumination.

James Emory · November 29th, 2004, 11:15 PM

I don't care what anybody says, I still think it's a HOOT!!!!

Michael Struthers · November 30th, 2004, 05:27 PM

The Govt will want the names and addresses of everyone who watches "Desperate Housewives".

Just kidding. I hope.

James Emory · January 13th, 2005, 04:13 AM

Whew! That Nielsen guy or gal must be worn out after traveling all over the country getting 4.9 million people to sign that clipboard for those viewer reports in one night. They didn't come to my house to see what I was watching. What a joke, a ballyhoo, a farce, etc......!

Judging from the promos, that show was doomed to fail. It was terrible and I didn't even watch it.

http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/arti...px?news=178285

If/when the link goes dead, here it is:

The Associated Press

1.12.05

NEW YORK -- CBS lost "The Will" after just one night. This reality series, which logged a minuscule 4.2 million viewers on its premiere airing Saturday, has been axed by CBS, the network confirmed Wednesday.

Despite heavy promotion, "The Will" ranked 79th place in viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research, making it CBS' lowest-ranked show of the week. (The week's most-watched show, CBS' "CSI," drew almost 29 million viewers.)

A rerun of CBS' Sunday crime drama "Cold Case" will plug the hole this Saturday, the network said.

A reality show whose 10 participants vied to be sole heir to the fortune of a 73-year-old rancher, "The Will" thus joins a handful of other one-shot blunders in TV history.

The most recent was "South of Sunset," a CBS detective drama with former Eagles rocker Glenn Frey, which debuted Oct. 27, 1993, then was never seen again.

With a 6.1 rating, that show attracted what was deemed the smallest audience ever for a series premiere on any major network.

For the sake of comparison, "The Will" got a 2.9 rating.

July 1st, 2004, 04:23 PM	#18
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Richard, which paper? __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

July 1st, 2004, 05:58 PM	#21
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Thanks, Richard. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

November 29th, 2004, 04:56 PM	#24
Joe Gioielli Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New Port Richey, Fl Posts: 142	As I can't count beyond ten without removing my shoes, I'll leave the math issues to greater minds than mine. However, I would like to state that I just had the honor of doing a one week online survey of my tv viewing for the Nielsen Media research group. Ye Gads! Granted, I admit that my data normally belongs on the skinny ends of the bell curve, but the week they picked, I must have been in a real funk. All I was watching were cartoons and tv shows about media on Trio., with the assorted rerun of "laugh-In" (tinkle! tinkle! tinkle!) thrown in for good measure. No smart news shows, no high brow black and white films with subtitles, not even "Baywatch" or any other "eye candy" shows. No, Just Bart and Homer, Peter and Stewie, Dickie and Dan. Soooo, when the tv shows about cartoon characters discussing the place of media in modern society start hitting the air waves, you'll know whom to blame. Sorry. OK, one comment about the math. Whan I took stats in college our teacher told us that he believed that the best way to use stats was the same way a drunk uses a lamp-post, more for support than illumination. __________________ Why ask me? I thought you were in charge!

November 30th, 2004, 05:27 PM	#26
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	The Govt will want the names and addresses of everyone who watches "Desperate Housewives". Just kidding. I hope. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

January 13th, 2005, 04:13 AM	#27
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Here we go again! Whew! That Nielsen guy or gal must be worn out after traveling all over the country getting 4.9 million people to sign that clipboard for those viewer reports in one night. They didn't come to my house to see what I was watching. What a joke, a ballyhoo, a farce, etc......! Judging from the promos, that show was doomed to fail. It was terrible and I didn't even watch it. http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/arti...px?news=178285 If/when the link goes dead, here it is: The Associated Press 1.12.05 NEW YORK -- CBS lost "The Will" after just one night. This reality series, which logged a minuscule 4.2 million viewers on its premiere airing Saturday, has been axed by CBS, the network confirmed Wednesday. Despite heavy promotion, "The Will" ranked 79th place in viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research, making it CBS' lowest-ranked show of the week. (The week's most-watched show, CBS' "CSI," drew almost 29 million viewers.) A rerun of CBS' Sunday crime drama "Cold Case" will plug the hole this Saturday, the network said. A reality show whose 10 participants vied to be sole heir to the fortune of a 73-year-old rancher, "The Will" thus joins a handful of other one-shot blunders in TV history. The most recent was "South of Sunset," a CBS detective drama with former Eagles rocker Glenn Frey, which debuted Oct. 27, 1993, then was never seen again. With a 6.1 rating, that show attracted what was deemed the smallest audience ever for a series premiere on any major network. For the sake of comparison, "The Will" got a 2.9 rating.

July 1st, 2004, 07:26 AM	#16
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	These studies are based on at least 100 years and more of study. Your decision is based on what?

July 1st, 2004, 03:43 PM	#17
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Article in the paper this morning about how a new "more acurate" system is being installed by Neilsen. This will replace the old diary method. Supposed to be more "accurate". How appropos.

July 1st, 2004, 05:32 PM	#19
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Sorry, I was reading the Houston Chronicle this morning. Should be online. The thrust of the story was how the new process (Which is undergoing a form of beta testing) was perhaps not reflective of minority viewing habits. It explained how the old interviews to select representative viewwers were going to be dropped, and how the diary logs were not as acurate as the new automated systems. (That was Nielsons point, not mine)

July 1st, 2004, 05:47 PM	#20
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Okay team, I want brownie points for effort above and beyond the call here. I went dumpster diving for the article. In the "OUTLOOK" section of Houston Chronicle is an article written by SUSAN WHITING, who is listed as chief executive officer and president of Niesen Media Research. Title of the article is "Media are playing the race card in TV ratings". A relevant paragraph- "Nielsen Media research is planning to introduce its "people meter" in Los Angeles in July, This electronic data-collection device, which would be placed in the viewers home, is the most reliable efficeint and scientific way to collect TV viewing information. ...' The article is apparantly addressing objections to the new system being raised by UPN and FOX. "The people meter electronically monitors what is being watched, and for how long, on the sets of randomly selected Nielsen families. The outdated handwritten diaried now used sometimes missed some viewing because the diary0keeper forgot to write it all down. Unlike the diary, the people meter picks up all that grazing- the five minutes, here, ten minutes there - and many new channels get noticed." They will still do statistical averaging however... it's really an improvement of viewing habit accuracy - at least that's Nielsens line. Perhaps someone else can google up a reference to the article on line. I am going to wash my hands. Richard

July 11th, 2004, 03:18 PM	#22
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Is there any denial that more people watch Friends, ER and CSI than anything else?

July 11th, 2004, 03:39 PM	#23
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	I think it's safe to say that ALOT of people watch those shows but there's really no way to know just how many. No wait, the Nielsen group could tell you, they give out exact numbers plus or minus a few. They have two people that travel the entire country with an electronic clip board, like the UPS driver, where EACH and EVERY person in America signs his/her name and what program(s) they watch. What's even more amazing is that they do all of this in one week and then turn right around and do it again each week! These guys are kind of like Santa Claus, but he travels the entire world in one night.

November 29th, 2004, 11:15 PM	#25
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	I don't care what anybody says, I still think it's a HOOT!!!!