Jump to content

ALL: January 1994 Ratings


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Keep in mind, this was back when SOD published every 2 weeks instead of every week, so we see ratings progression of every other week unfortunately.

Two weeks before L&L's return...

Ratings10111993.jpg

L&L's return...

Ratings10251993.jpg

Two weeks later...

Ratings11081993.jpg

Okay, this next one is from March 16th, 1992. First of all, it looks like a real lull for soaps at this point, ratings-wise. Secondly, this must've been right when Soap Opera Digest started listing the actual ratings numbers, complete with with bars... the bars are so poorly spaced! B&B's 5.0 is actually *longer* than GL's 5.1 right above it! lol

Ratings03161992.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The ratings are much better then, but not exactly comparable to today. For instance, LOVING's 3.3 rating in 1993 is equivalent to a 2.6 household rating today. And AMC's rating of 9.3 for that week in 1981 when GH was airing the Luke/Laura wedding is actually only equivalent to a 5.9 household rating today. Why?

Because each ratings point is actually a percent of the total households in the US. For instance, Y&R's 3.4 rating last week means 3.4% of US TV households watched the program, on average, each day last week. Since the number of US TV households increases each year, one ratings point (or percent) is worth more each year. In 1981, a 1.0 was equivalent to 729,000 households. You can see in the SOD ratings snaps that in 1993, it was worth 959,000. Today, each point is worth 1,149,000 households. And it'll be updated again at the start of the new fall season, as it is every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First you took a rating point, multiplied it by the equivalent of households and then converted that number of households back to ratings point according to today's equivalent in households, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah....although, btw, if you're referring to my LOVING 3.3/2.6 equivalent, it's not my math that was wrong, it was the figure I used (959,000), lol.....since a ratings point was worth even less than that in 1993, that 3.3 is worth even less than a 2.6 today

To compare any ratings from the past to today, multiply the rating (say 3.3) times the number of households each ratings point was worth back then (say 942,000), and then divide by what a ratings point is worth today (1,149,0000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why didn't you do it the other way around, i.e. multiplied the past rating point by today's equivalent? A percentage is a percentage, one of it's main functions is comparison. When you say France has a 57% budget deficit, you don't go converting that to euros, then dollars, then calculating how much of a percantage of the whole US budget deficit that is.

That's wrong.

You go the other way around. France's 57% is the same as US 57% because those are %.

Nielsen f*cks things up by giving the equivalent, I don't know why they do it. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I did it that way because it's a more accurate comparison of actual hard numbers. I "get" that it's a big deal to get say a 20.0 rating back then, since it represented 20% of households, a big chunk....but I'd argue that a 20.0 rating is a bigger deal now not just because it's worth more households, but also because there's much more competition today.

The fact is, a 1.0 rating in 1981 was worth 729,000 households, and today a 1.0 is worth 1,149,000 households. Yes, they're both 1%...but today it's 1% of a much bigger pie, with many more choices.

Look at it this way...doing it your way, let's say there are only 1000 TV households in 1948, and 900 of them watch Meet the Press on Sunday morning, one of only two choices they have. That's a 90.0 rating. Would you say that's the best rating ever? I wouldn't, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy