Jump to content

Nielsen Has Been Getting TV Ratings Wrong for Months


DramatistDreamer

Recommended Posts

  • Members

This is from Deadline with more information what happened with ABC. http://deadline.com/2014/10/abc-ratings-premiere-week-nielsen-glitch-primetime-gma-world-news-kimmel-849788/

This is the prime time info- the article also goes into detail about late night, the nightly news and late night talk. "In the revised ratings, only 5 ABC series received upward adjustments — .1 for all — the usual suspects Modern Family (3.8),Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2.0), Once Upon a Time (3.5), Grey’s Anatomy (3.1) and The Goldbergs (2.4). What’s more, two series, Nashville (1.4) and Revenge(1.3), were adjusted down a tenth, the first time an ABC series has received a downward adjustment this fall."

So yes HTGAWM didn't have as high as a rating as original thought for Live Plus Same Day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've always wondered over the years just how many people Neilsen counts. I have never been, nor have I ever known anyone who was, a participant in their system. To me, it's like when the newspapers or tv news take polls of 1,000 people and proclaim "the majority of Americans" think this or that.

Seriously, with today's technology and big brother monitoring, there has to be a more accurate measurement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, I do know someone who is a Nielsen "family" and I've seen the box as well. One of the reasons, no one really knows is that each individual or groups are asked not to tell anyone that they do the Nielsen's.

I do agree though, it seems strange that such a relatively small community has such outsize influence on ratings and ad dollars.

Ironically, I was approached to be a digital Nielsen (online) participant but I declined because it sort of freaked me out to have to install software onto my computer that someone could tabulate (and possibly monitor) page clicks. I know that with the TV top box, you need to turn it on but there is this paranoia I have that once installed inside my computer, I could actually have been handing control over to someone or something operating from remote. Also, they weren't offering nearly enough compensation to make it even worth my while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, I do know someone who is a Nielsen "family" and I've seen the box as well. One of the reasons, no one really knows is that each individual or groups are asked not to tell anyone that they do the Nielsen's.

I do agree though, it seems strange that such a relatively small community has such outsize influence on ratings and ad dollars.

Ironically, I was approached to be a digital Nielsen (online) participant but I declined because it sort of freaked me out to have to install software onto my computer that someone could tabulate (and possibly monitor) page clicks. I know that with the TV top box, you need to turn it on but there is this paranoia I have that once installed inside my computer, I could actually have been handing control over to someone or something operating from remote. Also, they weren't offering nearly enough compensation to make it even worth my while.

I understand, actually. The thought of ones security/privacy being invated is scary as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've always wondered over the years just how many people Neilsen counts. I have never been, nor have I ever known anyone who was, a participant in their system. To me, it's like when the newspapers or tv news take polls of 1,000 people and proclaim "the majority of Americans" think this or that.

Seriously, with today's technology and big brother monitoring, there has to be a more accurate measurement.

These are legitimate concerns, but I'm sure that if the statistical sampling that Neilsen does is way off, the television networks would have stopped using that service by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've always wondered over the years just how many people Neilsen counts. I have never been, nor have I ever known anyone who was, a participant in their system. To me, it's like when the newspapers or tv news take polls of 1,000 people and proclaim "the majority of Americans" think this or that.

Seriously, with today's technology and big brother monitoring, there has to be a more accurate measurement.

IA with this. I don't see why there isn't a way for more automatic and accurate data retrieval. It seems like the time for an overhaul would have been when the nation moved to digital signals last decade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel like Hulu/Netflix hits are more reliable than Nielsen's system, to be honest. We were a Nielsen family twice when I was a kid, and both times, I was literally the ONLY person in my family of 4 who actually wrote down everything I watched. My parents and older brother literally did not care at all, but they're all avid TV junkies like myself, so...yeah. I still think about those lost Nielsen points for Lifetime's Any Day Now and that local New Orleans rap news show Phat Phat 'n All That.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel like Hulu/Netflix hits are more reliable than Nielsen's system, to be honest. We were a Nielsen family twice when I was a kid, and both times, I was literally the ONLY person in my family of 4 who actually wrote down everything I watched. My parents and older brother literally did not care at all, but they're all avid TV junkies like myself, so...yeah. I still think about those lost Nielsen points for Lifetime's Any Day Now and that local New Orleans rap news show Phat Phat 'n All That.

I agree but isn't it ironic that neither publicly releases their ratings numbers? Wall street seems to get really pissed about this (lol). Netflix is subscriber based, so if the subscribers and the producers of the shows don't care, why the hell should anyone else?

Hulu, the free version does rely on Ads but I'm thinking that everyone knows they do healthy numbers anyway and the ads keep rolling in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks for posting this @kalbir. I knew some of, but not all of this. Bell took a calculated risk with how built the Williams and the Abbott families, but he used two characters, though marginal, who had been imbedded in the fabric of the show's canvas. It wasn't like the Rosales family where they had one minor character for a few months, then brought on his family, then basically switched him out for his brother as a major character. That was so weird. It seemed as if Bell gave the viewers a bit of a breather with Paul and Jack becoming more prominent. If it really is true that Y&R lost no market share after basically dismantling the Brooks and Foster families, then I guess that speaks to how the changes were received overall by the viewers, they may have been disappointed but they obviously kept watching. Also, the storytelling was so much more methodical back then. Characters had to prove highly popular before landing magazine covers and photospreads in soap publications. It's not like when the Rosales were posing for photospreads when nobody even knew who half the characters were.  It seemed as if that family was introduced with lightning speed. 
    • I'm not willing to go that far... yet. China is drastic in the way they deal with dissidents but they're not Russia...yet. China has been known to 'disappear' people who they feel are interfering with the way they run their government business but not usually such high profile individuals (and usually not famous women, who they consider their flowers). Also, unlike Russia, China only seems to take the most extreme measures when some serious criminal charge is made (like the man who was charged with tainting the milk supply, who was executed). Ai Wei Wei is a dissident artists who makes dissident art that is openly critical of Chinese politics and government and he is treated as a hostile force, but even by his own admission he is deliberately provocative, as he believes agit-art is the best way that he can try to get the attention of people who would force change. China is not really in the business of disappearing people like Russia does. At least, not permanently. Jack Ma is one example of someone who went missing for weeks, if not months, then suddenly turned up on his yacht out in the middle of somewhere. You've heard of "Too Big to Fail"? Well, Ma was too big/famous to disappear. With her level of notoriety, I think it would be next to impossible to just do away with her, she's not poor anonymous "Tank Man" in Tiananmen Square. She is Han Chinese woman whose notoriety has only been growing, she's not the unfortunate Uyghurs who are often locked away for months in "re-education" camps, but I suspect that the government will try to 're-program' her mind to forget her allegations, likely under pressure if not all out threats made to her and her family. If she emerges publicly, if not living in anonymity, there will likely be every effort to have her appear timid and cowed in public, much the way she appears now, with broad forced smiles, in front of a menagerie of plush toys.
    • Tubi has some great stuff and I'm currently watching the He-Man She-Ra Christmas Special from 1985 
  • On Soap Opera Network

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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