Planetfurry BBS

beno · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:51 pm Post subject: Are TV ratings accurate?

We've all painfully watched shows we like (or love) pulled off of the TV because of bad ratings (Wonderfalls, and Father of the Pride to name a couple.) . But are they actually accurate? I personnally question the credibility in them, but have your say anyway.

Joshua Fox · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject:

Actually you might be surprised: I myself participated in several Nielson Ratings inquiries and found that the format they use is very helpful. Essentially you're given forms that ask you when you watch television, and when you do, what you watch. Ideally you're supposed to have the form next to you for a week whenever you watch TV; the only real trouble with that is the possibility of people lying or, of course, not turning the forms back in at all. Razz

Looking at your Avatar, I assume you're particularly dissappointed in Father of the Pride being cancelled. Understandable; it was an excellent show. Though the reason that particular one was cancelled wasn't specifically 'low' ratings; it just meant the ratings weren't sufficient enough to make up for the cost to make each episode ($1.6 Million a shot, actually).

In that business, profit is the name of the game: if you're just breaking even, you really start to get worried. If you're losing cash, you pull the plug.

Sad, but true.

PrincessB · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:07 pm Post subject:

Well you already know my feelings on it, beno. But pretty much, no I don't find them accurate at all, they only ask a few people what they watch. The only way to really know would be to ask anyone (or any household) who owns a tv, and that they don't do. Most of the ratings are simply guessing.. <still sniffing over loss of Wonderfalls, I sooo want the dvd with all the episodes>

Vexxed · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject:

Asalis · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject:

I cant say that I know much about such things so i can only guess at best. However nothing is ever really perfect. And in situations like these profit most often wins out over all in buisness. More than likely they just didn't have the funds to keep running a show like this. CG isn't exactly cheap or easy to do. something like this takes a lot of time, effort, and money. Most CG shows like Father of the Prode for example are lucky to make it past a second season.

Sigurd Volsung · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject:

I think it would be more accurate to say that Neilson Ratings are affect by time slots, shows can be adversely effected by what other show are in that slot. An incredible show can be destroyed by being put in a time slot that competes with an established show. Even MASH almost didn't survive its first season because of this. So while the Neilson Ratings may accurately show viewer ship, it has nothing to do with how good a show is.

Iron_Raptor · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:29 am Post subject:

I think Father of the Pride will go the way of Family Guy.

Fox will pull the plug, then notice the DVD sales are extraordinarily high and say 'Hey! Let's get back the show!' Razz

Tygon · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:43 am Post subject:

I'm pretty sure that the TV ratings are accurate. Otherwise most commercial channels would have went buh-bye long ago.

The problem is that most furs in the fandom have a non-mainstream taste in what they like to watch.

JediFur · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:11 am Post subject:

Actually, there was a recent debacle in which the Neilsens admitted that they'd made serious errors multiple weeks in a row, which had affected advertiser decisions.

One has cause to wonder if vastly improving shows like Star Trek: Enterprise, and already strong shows were impacted in a way unfair to them, either giving them way too much credit, or not giving them enough.

There was talk that the Nielsons have been making quite a few more mistakes than were revealed, and some fans of the genre shows, like Trek, were demanding recounts and re-drawing of the ratings. If they were that far wrong, what's to say that Star Trek wasn't getting a 6 or 7 share, rather than the 3.6 or lower they were being assigned? 6 or 7 isn't great, but it's certainly not a show killer level.

-JediFur

hikaru · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:58 am Post subject:

With the advent of digital cable, satelite TV and Tivo, it's become much easier for production groups to track the actual useage of the television audience. Tivo already does target marketing on the end customer based on what they watch. There's a rather famous article written about a guy who recorded some show with gay content and his Tivo started suggesting/auto-recording all kinds of gay content. In return, he tried to start recording macho-hetrosexual programs (including pornography) to try and untrain his Tivo.

I think the Neilson ratings are a thing of the past. They have their place as representing people outside the digital system, but that's the minority now.

It should be interesting to see what happens in the future.

Cheers

beno · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:37 pm Post subject:

RunningCat · Registered User Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 171

OK it is time for me to chime in here. I work for a mid size TV station in the state of washington. Here is how the neilson rating system workin this area I get the other a little later. A Certain select number of people are asked to watch TV during the major rating periods and write it down in a Neilson Diary that diary at the end is then sent to neilson hedquarters where it tabulated. With those numbers we use it to determine which show to charge what amount in the future this includes all those show on during the day.

Now the day to day neilson ratings are done a little more sufiscated and is more accurate than the diary. There a set top rating system that tracks what is being seen on the TV at any one time this is usually where the day to day ratings come from. From those a safiscated rating system is formed (which I am not sure how it works but I could ask some at work) is figured on how many people are watching that show at that time.

I could find out more info on this subject info any one wants it.

beno · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:05 pm Post subject:

Yes, I can see why they use the Neilson ratings system, but I can't see why they trust it so much. There's too much margin for error. We found this out at my school when we did an experiment with Nielson ratings. It just doesn't seem to work. And I said, but I'll say again, chaos theory dictates that there is a large margin of error. You just can't judge how many people watch a TV show from a small sample like the Neilson ratings. You have to have close to all the population for it to be accurate.

PrincessB · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:15 pm Post subject:

Exactly why I say its mostly guessing. They question a small group of people then guess/suppose/assume that most of the population is like those few.. So if you give the questions to a group of 10 and 9 of them watch the football game on one chanel, and only one person watches Star Trek, this rating system will say that everyone likes sports and very few likes Star Trek, never mind that the 9 people were major sports nuts and were part of the very few that were actually watching the game, most were watching the season premeir of Star Trek. Its just guessing, taking a small amount of info in an area where u need tons of info and assuming that this tiny bit of info is all the possible info.

beno · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:

Yes, you're right. They don't take into consideration that their sample of 1000 or so viewers may miss out demographics. Like I'm sure many furries would have seen the ads for Father of the Pride and said to themselves, "I'm not missing that." But in a sample of 1000 you're gonna miss out demographics like that.