Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Massive ratings for such a one sided match
Friday 10 September 2021
Five City Metro, 6pm-12am, Total People Network ABC 10.4% 10.9% ABC K/P 1.7% 2.0% ABC Me 0.4% 0.4% ABC News 1.8% 1.8% ABC TTL 14.3% 15.1%...forums.mediaspy.org
It'd be a big mistake putting it up against an AFL GF, where they could just play the Friday night before hand, but I don't think the NRL really care about Victoria to be honest. If there was no AFL game up against the Storm game last night there probably would've been 3-4 times more people watching in Vic.428,000 (NRL 336,00) on Fox is very strong figure as well and with the massive FTA figures it puts to rest once and for all the false claim that RL is the best and most popular code on TV! Ch 9 would be smarting in Melbourne also with only 88,000 turning in to the Storm match!
It will be interesting to see if the RL put the Storm PF up against the AFL GF!
With the NRL choosing to play at a small country ground with only 9100 in attendance it made it look second rate and amateurish in comparison to the magnificent spectacle at a full Optus Oval.
If you compare it to the 2016 Finals series, the 2021 series rated 11.2m to 14m - down 20% across FTA and Fox - a figure definitely not made up by streaming numbers. Over the last 5 years, FTA dropped 18%, Fox dropped 24%.
I would have thought that streaming would come quite close to making up that 20% drop.
week 1 streaming ratings this year came in at 735,000 over 4 matches. The deficit is a couple of million still
Surely you have to look at the clubs playing in the finals when comparing years and ratings. The two biggest clubs essendon and sydney bundled out in the first round. The last 6 wouldn't be in the top 8 for club support i wouldn't think. A finals series without any of these sides going deep:
Essendon, carlton, collingwood, richmond, west coast, adelaide, sydney is naturally going to rate a bit lower.
The gap is currently 1.7m with the first two weeks of streaming completely known, and only the prelim streaming unknown. We also know from the data that the streaming numbers for the semis wasnt significantly higher than the week 1 finals. In fact we know from the data that the average final rating dropped from week 1 to week 2.
I don't know about "helping me sleep at night" but you sure are sensitive to feedback!
That data shows the 2016 was a big outlier year
Which is reinforced by this from the 2016 annual report
The Toyota AFL Finals Series The gross cumulative audience for the 2016 Toyota AFL Finals Series was 18,368,305. This marks an increase of 10.7 per cent on the total national viewership for the 2015 Toyota AFL Finals Series (16,588,991) and makes it the highest gross cumulative audience for an AFL Finals Series in AFL/VFL history.
A major highlight of the 2016 Toyota AFL Finals Series was the preliminary final between the GWS Giants and the Western Bulldogs, which attracted a national average audience of 2.40 million across free-to-air and subscription television. It was the highest audience for a match since 2008 (excluding Grand Finals) and the second highest in history (behind only the 2.47 million who watched the Geelong v Collingwood preliminary final on a Friday night in 2007).
The average audience of 543,000 viewers on subscription television was also the highest-rating AFL match on the platform of all time (noting the AFL Grand Final is not broadcast on subscription television)
So that Giants Bulldogs game alone had almost 900K more average viewers on FTA plus Box alone than last night's game.
I don't know about "helping me sleep at night" but you sure are sensitive to feedback!
Im not sensitive at all.
If you need to pick and choose your data or find context to make it easier to swallow, then good for you
- I chose not to in this case - I simply note that I chose a 5 year reference point - Id have done a 10 year one if I had the data to hand as well. Yes it was a big year.
Every year has differentiating factors that make it fun to compare.
Hahahah aaaaaaah, sure. Keep telling yourself that.
It is noting to do with "picking and choosing". I didn't "pick and choose" anything.
It's the very basics of analytical competence
No professional (i.e. not you) data analyst would mindlessly use an outlier year as the basis for a comparison without qualification - which is what you did.
"Simply" probably says it all really.
sure.
You cant just take a peak point and say it doesnt count because it doesnt fit your narrative. I mean, obviously you can, because you did, but it doesnt mean you should.
inappropriate/misleading baseline from which to assert that there has been a drop "over the last X years"
Never claimed to be professional,
nor did i supply analysis - simply noted what it was and that it was down on 2016. which is all true.
And yet you are carrying on like you are
You did supply analysis. You clearly just don't know the difference
I think you are right on the money there!Surely you have to look at the clubs playing in the finals when comparing years and ratings. The two biggest clubs essendon and sydney bundled out in the first round. The last 6 wouldn't be in the top 8 for club support i wouldn't think. A finals series without any of these sides going deep:
Essendon, carlton, collingwood, richmond, west coast, adelaide, sydney is naturally going to rate a bit lower.
And thats rubbish. And its always been rubbish. And its touted by people who cant stand that some people like or respect what i do for some reason. Its an issue you and certain others have had for some time.
an inappropriate/misleading baseline from which to assert that there has been a drop "over the last X years"
Im not a ratings expert - even though i have access to the ratings data needed to make that ascertation - any more than Im a financial expert, despite decades of collating, reading and dissembling the data. Ive never claimed otherwise.
No I did not. I gave data and said it was down on 5 years ago - this is fact given without opinion or analysis.
Over the last 5 years, FTA dropped 18%, Fox dropped 24%.
I think most people "like or respect" the fact you gather and assemble sporting data. I've conveyed such sentiments to you previously. I won't do it this time because on previous times you've assured me you don't care if I am grateful for your work!
I've got an issue with how rude and defensive you get if anyone questions any inference you make from that data
In this instance, for tha sins of correctly pointing out that 2016 was likely an outlier and thus
you've responded with data (that proved I was correct) suggesting that you hope "it helps me sleep at night" with the clear intent of demeaning me for merely pointing out 2016 was likely an outlier year
I can't even reference anything else you wrote in that post along the same lines because you have subsequently deleted it but there was more along those lines that my correct assessment was actually just blinkered bias
I suspect such rude responses are a reason why some people have an issue with you rather than that people "like and respect" you.
You actually do have ratings expertise. You would probably be within a few hand fulls of people with your level of knowledge of Australian sports TV ratings.
You just don't have any analytical expertise. Your problem is you don't even know when you are departing from the revealer of collected ratings data to analyst and interpreter of that data.
You implied a "drop" "over the last five years", which was an analytical claim and, given the base year was an outlier year (and a massive one at that), it was a very misleading one
The fact you are even arguing with me on this is proof you think you have a professional level of expertise. Otherwise why would you be so cocksure?
Ive no issue with people intepreting the data. It happens all the time on my twitter feed and on here and elsewhere. I have an issue with what you claim I did./
Thats not how its intended to come across. If it helps you to believe a certain thing, you do that.
Actually its deleted, because Im literally not allowed to post tabulated ratings on this forum or on twitter - expressly forbidden by oztam.
Its got nothing to do with that. This discussion has been had before where you and others treat me in certain ways.
Youve no idea what expertise i have in anything.
The data is in point of fact lower - or down - on 2016. Literally all i said.
It doesnt take analysis to see that the 2020 figure is demonstrably lower than the 2016 figure. Your argument is that i literally didnt provide context - which is in fact, analysis, or isnt it?
inappropriate/misleading baseline from which to assert that there has been a drop "over the last X years"
Because im literate and can read what I damn wrote.