2024 AFL TV Ratings and Streaming

[The_Wookie]

There are changes coming as the whole ratintgs system moves over the VOZ.

New year, new ratings data from OzTAM: Big changes in TV audience measurement​

Mediaweek Original byJames Manning

New year, new ratings data from OzTAM: Big changes in TV audience measurement

OzTAM is introducing two new daily VOZ website reports for Total TV Overnight and 7-day reach totals in addition to the top program rankings.

www.mediaweek.com.au

The way Australian TV audiences are measured will change significantly next week as OzTAM embraces Total TV audience reach in a bid to provide greater engagement measurement for marketers.

From Monday 29 January, OzTAM will launch two new daily VOZ website reports that provide Total TV Overnight and 7-day reach totals in addition to the top program rankings.

The official home of TV audience measurement telegraphed the changes last year. However, exact details about what the new publicly available data would include were kept under wraps.

OzTAM said at the time: “Learnings from [the testing] phase will determine the launch timing, anticipated in calendar 2024.”

In a briefing to Mediaweek yesterday, OzTAM revealed that four weeks into 2024 the VOZ button is being pressed. The changes will see Mediaweek and other publications switch to the VOZ reports from Monday, however, media agencies will continue to use TAM ratings until internal agency trading systems are updated. It is uncertain how long this cross-over of different metrics will last.

The changes will mean that daily TV ratings data, which are currently eleased just after 9am with an embargo of 10am, will no longer be available. The VOZ Total TV figures will now be released by 11.35am by OzTAM.

The changes come just before Foxtel’s launch of its new ratings data collected by Kantar. Those first figures could be just days away. It is not expected the Foxtel panel data will be released daily.

Measuring TV audiences: OzTAM history​

The new ratings provider OzTAM was formed by the commercial broadcasters Seven, Nine and Network Ten and released its first data in 2001. The new ratings system was believed to have negatively impacted Nine at the time. The network lost its top spot in the ratings and is believed to have cost then-Nine CEO David Leckie his job. He later turned up at Seven of course where he had more success.

The biggest challenge OzTAM has faced over the years has been keeping pace with the changing way audiences are consuming entertainment on a growing range of digital devices.

Running OzTAM for 12 years was Doug Peiffer who stepped down as CEO last July. His time in the role saw him work on the evolution of online-delivered broadcast content (BVOD) measurement and Australia’s all-screen, cross-platform Total TV database, VOZ.

That was just part of the role. Another part was being mindful of the competing interests of the three OzTAM partners – Seven, Nine and now Paramount ANZ.

Running OzTAM since the end of November 2023 has been new CEO Karen Halligan. She joined the audience data collector from KPMG.

The starkest example of differences in the OzTAM boardroom was the push for a national TV audience figure. Seven’s James Warburton has been strident in his criticisms of the data OzTAM released. He often claimed the audience measurement numbers being released were the smallest possible figures. That is about to change.

See also: Everything you need to know – OzTAM launches VOZ viewing data

Reach is the new norm​

While average audience numbers will still be available, OzTAM will rank the data in its new VOZ Total TV reports by the national reach of the programs.
The new VOZ Total TV reports feature:
1) Total TV Overnight Top 30 programs
• Free-to-air programs ranked on National Total TV reach
• Total TV National and BVOD audience thousands for the top 30 programs
• Overnight National cumulative reach of Total TV, Broadcast TV and BVOD to be broken out at top of the report
• Demographics: Total Ppl, Ppl 25-54, Ppl 16-39, Grocery Shoppers (18+)
2) Total TV Consolidated 7 Top 30 programs
• Free-to Air programs ranked on National Total TV reach for the most recent Consolidated 7-day
• Total TV National and BVOD audience thousands for the top 30 programs over the most recent Consolidated 7-day period
• 7-day National cumulative reach of Total TV, Broadcast TV and BVOD to be broken out at top of the report
• Demographics: Total Ppl, Ppl 25-54, Ppl 16-39, Grocery Shoppers (18+)
Total TV includes National Broadcast TV and National BVOD.

From January 29 OzTAM will cease production of the daily Overnight and Consolidated viewing reports, including the Daily Total Program Ranking, currently emailed to media with data licence agreements each morning.

OzTAM said the enhanced VOZ website reports offer a clearer picture of the audience consuming broadcaster content across all platforms and devices on a daily and weekly basis and highlight the continued growth of BVOD viewing.

Timing of OzTAM daily reports​

The new VOZ website reports will also be published at the earlier time of approximately 11:35am – an hour earlier than the current release schedule of approximately 12:35pm.
However, as noted above, it means there will be no longer a daily release to media of any data earlier in the morning.

How do reach and audience figures differ?​

An OzTAM explainer made available this week outlines the change to reach as the key metric when ranking the success of TV shows.
• Reach is the sum of unique (individual) viewers who have watched at least one minute of a program or daypart across its total duration. This means an individual is only counted once if they have viewed at least one minute (broadcast TV) and/or 15 seconds (BVOD) of the program
• Reach differs to [average] audience, which is the sum of all individuals watching each minute of a program/daypart divided by the duration of the program/daypart to give an average minute audience across the duration of the event being analysed

OzTAM has also explained why the daily overnight TAM and STV reports and the daily rolling FTA C7 TPR distributed to journalists is ceasing.

• Understanding the true picture of Total TV performance requires a Total TV view
• Total TV reach figures provide the most accurate picture of all-screen program consumption and campaign performance over time
• The move to Total TV reach-based reports supports the industry’s move towards VOZ as currency
• [This] will streamline and simplify reporting practices and minimise confusion between the various datasets

As to why historical audience reports are no longer available on the OzTAM and VOZ websites, the organisation explained:
• To avoid confusion and not-like-for-like comparisons
• Reach and [average] audience-based reporting are different calculations

As to why broadcast TV reach measurement is based on a viewing threshold of 1-minute and BVOD on 15-seconds, OzTAM commented:
• 1-minute reach is the industry-accepted standard for broadcast TV reach
• 15-second reach for BVOD represents the unique count of people who have watched at least 15 seconds of the program. This count provides a television reach-like number. Facebook for example requires just 3 seconds to count as a video view. On YouTube though, a view is counted after 30 seconds.

 

[The_Wookie]

Foxtel will be using Kantar

Kantar Media to unlock audience insights in Australia​

Return Path Data service will unlock new insights into subscriber behaviours
26 October 2023

Foxtel Media appoints Kantar Media to unlock audience insights in Australia

Return Path Data service will unlock new insights into subscriber behaviours

www.kantar.com

26 October, London – Kantar Media, a world leader in audience measurement, has been commissioned by Australian Pay TV provider Foxtel to deliver an audience measurement service ingesting data collected from their subscribers’ set top boxes using return path data technology.

The Kantar Media powered service will unlock the power of the viewing data captured through more than one million Foxtel set-top boxes installed in Australia. Foxtel Media will access the data using the powerful AdvantEdge software from Kantar Media’s TechEdge software unit. The solution incorporates data validation, processing and capping, adjusting long viewing sessions into realistic viewing levels.

Mark Frain, CEO, Foxtel Media commented “In 2023, we should all be able to confidently measure and trade digital currency in a digital world. The Foxtel Group has access to data from over one million set top boxes and more than 3.1 million streaming customers, and we’d be negligent if we leave this data idling for another minute. That is why we’ve engaged Kantar Media, a world-renowned and locally familiar measurement player, to process and analyse viewing data from the true scale of set top boxes being used in Australia. We’re looking forward to delivering new insight into our audiences to aid media planning.”

The service will be able to provide a granular understanding of Pay-TV consumption and subscriber behaviour. It will be available for Foxtel Media clients from 1 December 2023.

Keld Nielsen, Senior Director at Kantar Media, added “We are delighted to partner with Foxtel, leveraging our deep experience in processing operator data to unlock the value of their subscriber data. We are excited to explore new opportunities to serve the Australian media industry, unlocking further opportunities to integrate and enrich more data sources in the future.”

About Foxtel
The Foxtel Group is one of Australia’s leading media companies, with more than 4.7 million subscribers. The Group's services encompass subscription television, streaming, sports production and advertising, and it has four retail brands which together reach almost one in two Australian households. Foxtel Media is the innovative advertising arm of the Foxtel Group.

About Kantar Media
As people increasingly move across channels and platforms, Kantar Media’s data and audience measurement, targeting, analytics and advertising intelligence services unlock insights to inform powerful decision-making.

Working with panel and first-party data in over 80 countries, we have the world’s fastest growing cross-media measurement footprint, underpinned by versatility, scale, technology and expertise, to drive long-term business growth for our clients and partners.

 

[The_Wookie]

Australia's OzTam Responds to Foxtel Ad Measure Launch​

October 30 2023

Daily Research News Online no. 35852 - Australia's OzTam Responds to Foxtel Ad Measure Launch

In Australia, official television audience measurement body OzTAM has responded to Foxtel's launch last week of its own ad currency service, saying it 'poses the risk of confusion in the market' and that 'the industry has clearly stated that it wants one service to measure Total TV'.

Last week Kantar Media announced it had been commissioned by Pay TV provider Foxtel to deliver an audience measurement service ingesting data collected from the set top boxes of more than one million subscribers using return path data technology. Tapping into analytics from VideoAmp, Foxtel Media will access the data using Kantar TechEdge's AdvantEdge software, which incorporates data validation, processing and capping, adjusting long viewing sessions into realistic viewing levels.

Foxtel Media CEO Mark Frain said 'In 2023, we should all be able to confidently measure and trade digital currency in a digital world. The Foxtel Group has access to data from over one million set top boxes and more than 3.1 million streaming customers, and we'd be negligent if we leave this data idling for another minute'.

OzTAM has been rolling out its Virtual Australia ('VOZ') Total TV database, which brings together broadcast viewing on TV sets and connected devices, since early 2020 (public launch was the following year). OzTam is jointly owned by the country's broadcasters Nine, Seven and 10, and works with Regional TAM and supplier Nielsen to provide it. This 'first truly national picture of total television viewing' will if all goes to plan be enhanced next year with the addition of VOZ Streaming.

Earlier in October OzTAM's new CEO Karen Halligan (pictured) told media industry paper Mumbrella the VOZ system is a 'new and complex initiative', currently in the testing phase, 'with broad industry consultation and feedback from broadcasters, media agencies, third-party software suppliers, and leading ad tech providers'. Understandably, then, it's not too happy about the Foxtel launch and in its statement today opined that 'Introducing a new measurement service is expected to raise questions regarding reliability, comparability and integration into agencies' buying systems. The industry has clearly stated that it wants one service to measure Total TV and that is what OzTAM provides'.

The statement continued: 'OzTAM is Australia's only independently audited and world-class service, measuring and reporting all free-to-air and subscription television viewing, in all homes, and measuring all screens and TVs in the home, whether or not they are internet-connected (approximately one third of TV sets in households are not internet enabled).

'For example, VOZ aggregates BVOD viewership across more than 16 million connected devices. As such, OzTAM's single source-of-truth measurement service underwrites the trust brands and media buyers continue to place in broadcasters' audience delivery.

'OzTAM values our decades-long relationship with Foxtel as a participating broadcaster and OzTAM data subscriber, and we look forward to that continuing, as evidenced by its recent contract extension'. Foxtel has confirmed it will not be ending its involvement in the OzTam panel.

A week ago marcoms firm PHD Australia announced a partnership with cross-media audience measurement solution Beatgrid, giving the agency and its clients 'the most complete view of campaign measurement, in order to understand the nuances of specific media channels and how they contribute to campaign success'.

 

[BobbyMorri]

the cynic in me says this change is all about making the numbers look better and hiding the fact that TV is losing market share.

Dont like it at all. The fact that regional reporting will be limited will annoy many people on this forum. It also makes year to year comparisons a lot harder.

 

[le dominateur]

If the AFL was disadvantaged by the use of averages because of game length then it stands to gain with the use of reach.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bjo187]

Great news for the AFL, bad news for toss and tackle. It's the way it always should have been measured. Warburton is a top operator, it's a shame his finishing up time at 7 didn't match up with the AFL's new CEO search, he would have been a good candidate.

The Educator you'll like this news.

 

[The_Wookie]

Based on what we're seeing now, there isnt even a metro/regional split.

Its Reach/Total TV/BVOD.

[VOZ captures ‘Total TV’, that is: viewing of Metropolitan, Regional and Subscription TV broadcasters’ (linear) TV content (whether viewed live or played back through the TV set up to 28 days of original broadcast) and also internet-delivered BVOD services. Participating BVOD broadcasters: ABC, Seven Network, Nine Network, Network 10, SBS and Foxtel.]



This is now the standard. There will not be a separate STV rating either. What this means is particularly dire for clubs like GWS/Gold Coast for which there may not be sufficient ratings to show on the daily top 30.

Means other sports which draw low at the best of the times will become invisible ratings wise - Basketball, Aleaguue, AFLW, WBBL, and much of the NRLW.

Record keeping going to be very scattered I suspect.

 

[The Educator]

Great news for the AFL, bad news for toss and tackle. It's the way it always should have been measured. Warburton is a top operator, it's a shame his finishing up time at 7 didn't match up with the AFL's new CEO search, he would have been a good candidate.

The Educator you'll like this news.

Don't agree on the Warburton for CEO but, you are correct on both that I like the news and it will be highly beneficial for comparisons between the AFL relative to the NRL.

An accumulated reach comparison is a far more rational comparison of a sport's annual audience than the illogical aggregation of average audience.

It will put paid to the nonsense claims of the NRL having a bigger audience.

To a lessor extent the Total TV estimate which backs out double counting and includes the mostly AFL supporting "Rest of Australia" will also benefit the AFL

 

[The_Wookie]

Don't agree on the Warburton for CEO but, you are correct on both that I like the news and it will be highly beneficial for comparisons between the AFL relative to the NRL.

An accumulated reach comparison is a far more rational comparison of a sport's annual audience than the illogical aggregation of average
audience.

Seems odd since no one Ive spoken to that reports on media ratings believes that this is a good change, and reach figures have been roundly ridiculed for years.

It will put paid to the nonsense claims of the NRL having a bigger audience.

To a lessor extent the Total TV estimate which backs out double counting and includes the mostly AFL supporting "Rest of Australia" will also benefit the AFL

Ive used VOZ data since April. It has had some minor benefit to AFL ratings in general - most double counting was in "league" areas.

 

[Bjo187]

Based on what we're seeing now, there isnt even a metro/regional split.

Its Reach/Total TV/BVOD.

[VOZ captures ‘Total TV’, that is: viewing of Metropolitan, Regional and Subscription TV broadcasters’ (linear) TV content (whether viewed live or played back through the TV set up to 28 days of original broadcast) and also internet-delivered BVOD services. Participating BVOD broadcasters: ABC, Seven Network, Nine Network, Network 10, SBS and Foxtel.]

View attachment 1894506

This is now the standard. There will not be a separate STV rating either. What this means is particularly dire for clubs like GWS/Gold Coast for which there may not be sufficient ratings to show on the daily top 30.

Means other sports which draw low at the best of the times will become invisible ratings wise - Basketball, Aleaguue, AFLW, WBBL, and much of the NRLW.

Record keeping going to be very scattered I suspect.

I think reach is a good change, however I think 1 minute is too short, it should be at least 3 mins. I also think they should have just kept the old table but added the reach column to the start of the table, with that now being how rankings are ordered.

Also the second column is that the old measure being national average audience (but with regional included too now instead of just metro)?

Edit:
The Seven West Media chief executive then explained why there will be a new metric that is the focus of the reports:

“The new VOZ reports will rank programs by audience reach (they will also give average total TV audience numbers nationally). Reach is the key performance metric for advertisers, and reach-ranked viewership provides a more comparable metric to other media, in particular online.

“While other media have spruiked what seemed like higher reach numbers, television will now be directly comparable to demonstrate our size and scale. Importantly this VOZ data will go directly into the reach and frequency systems of the media buyers and is a crucial step in getting advertising revenue share back to our medium.”

Finishing off his note to staff, Warburton said: “VOZ data is the new ratings currency. Like all change there will be some noise and no doubt some challenges. This is an absolute game changer for Seven and we all need to get behind it.”

While it is a game changer for Seven, it will be interesting to see how it impacts the perception of the way Nine and 10 are performing over the first few weeks of survey.

Nine is fortunate it leads into survey 2024 with Married at First Sight, which will cushion the impact of the national reach rankings.

James Warburton signed off his memo to staff with a rousing call to arms in his pre-survey address: “Let’s smash all comers in 2024!!”

 

[The Educator]

I think reach is a good change, however I think 1 minute is too short, it should be at least 3 mins. I also think they should have just kept the old table but added the reach column to the start of the table, with that now being how rankings are ordered.

Also the second column is that the old measure being national average audience (but with regional included too now instead of just metro)?

Edit:
The Seven West Media chief executive then explained why there will be a new metric that is the focus of the reports:

“The new VOZ reports will rank programs by audience reach (they will also give average total TV audience numbers nationally). Reach is the key performance metric for advertisers, and reach-ranked viewership provides a more comparable metric to other media, in particular online.

“While other media have spruiked what seemed like higher reach numbers, television will now be directly comparable to demonstrate our size and scale. Importantly this VOZ data will go directly into the reach and frequency systems of the media buyers and is a crucial step in getting advertising revenue share back to our medium.”

Finishing off his note to staff, Warburton said: “VOZ data is the new ratings currency. Like all change there will be some noise and no doubt some challenges. This is an absolute game changer for Seven and we all need to get behind it.”

While it is a game changer for Seven, it will be interesting to see how it impacts the perception of the way Nine and 10 are performing over the first few weeks of survey.

Nine is fortunate it leads into survey 2024 with Married at First Sight, which will cushion the impact of the national reach rankings.

James Warburton signed off his memo to staff with a rousing call to arms in his pre-survey address: “Let’s smash all comers in 2024!!”

These seem to be the two claimed bases for the impetus for moving to emphasise reach:
1. the apparent preference for advertisers for reach metrics
2. the sense of losing out to digital media which implicit use reach type figures

Seems odd since no one Ive spoken to that reports on media ratings believes that this is a good change, and reach figures have been roundly ridiculed for years.

You have asserted this many times but I am pretty sure you've never actually added the actual basis for the "ridicule". Is it they don't trust the accuracy of the reach figures or they don't rate its explanatory value or they don't think it has a commercial value? Without even a rationale this it is just ad populum / ad vercundiam

The above quotes from JW highlight two reasons for the preference for the reach figure. He alleges it is more valued by advertisers and that it removes the disadvantage against digital media which is (as far as I am aware) universally measured by number of views (i.e. a reach like figure)

More to the point, it is logically a no brainer to use reach (or viewer hours) if you are aggregating and comparing codes of different game lengths, rather than averages. As such, no informed professional analyst would disagree with this

Ive used VOZ data since April. It has had some minor benefit to AFL ratings in general - most double counting was in "league" areas.

Yep, it provided a marginal but predictable boost to AFL ratings.

It will be interesting to see what foxtel comes up with given that the double counting / not counting problem has been worse (missing regional WA as well) for STV

 

[Bjo187]

These seem to be the two claimed bases for the impetus for moving to emphasise reach:
1. the apparent preference for advertisers for reach metrics
2. the sense of losing out to digital media which implicit use reach type figures



You have asserted this many times but I am pretty sure you've never actually added the actual basis for the "ridicule". Is it they don't trust the accuracy of the reach figures or they don't rate its explanatory value or they don't think it has a commercial value? Without even a rationale this it is just ad populum / ad vercundiam

The above quotes from JW highlight two reasons for the preference for the reach figure. He alleges it is more valued by advertisers and that it removes the disadvantage against digital media which is (as far as I am aware) universally measured by number of views (i.e. a reach like figure)

More to the point, it is logically a no brainer to use reach (or viewer hours) if you are aggregating and comparing codes of different game lengths, rather than averages. As such, no informed professional analyst would disagree with this




Yep, it provided a marginal but predictable boost to AFL ratings.

It will be interesting to see what foxtel comes up with given that the double counting / not counting problem has been worse (missing regional WA as well) for STV

Well the tv networks have always clearly placed more value on other metrics and thought the ones posted weren't painting the true picture, otherwise the AFL wouldn't smack the competitors by so much each time the tv rights come around. It's now moved to a more common sense approach.

I think the complaints come from the types wookie speaks of because 1. It stuffs all their previous data 2. It's not as descriptive as it was previously (ie. City by city).

You can see why 7 wanted this change, their two sports are the longest running in time, footy and cricket, so it's advantageous to them. You wonder why 9 agreed to it, but it might be beneficial to them in low balling the nrl on their next rights deal which is currently in negotiation.

I don't get the double counting issue that you've spoken of previously, what was that about? Also I didn't gather from the foxtel information if they will also be moving to a reach based table, or sticking with the average calculation.

 

[The_Wookie]

Is it they don't trust the accuracy of the reach figures or they don't rate its explanatory value or they don't think it has a commercial value? Without even a rationale this it is just ad populum / ad vercundiam

Its relevance of the data to the overall broadcast audience given reach is literally based on people who watch at least 1 minute of a broadcast. Its no different to calling out participation data from Ausplay for under 15s that uses the "played once a year" as a metric.

The above quotes from JW highlight two reasons for the preference for the reach figure. He alleges it is more valued by advertisers and that it removes the disadvantage against digital media which is (as far as I am aware) universally measured by number of views (i.e. a reach like figure)

More to the point, it is logically a no brainer to use reach (or viewer hours) if you are aggregating and comparing codes of different game lengths, rather than averages. As such, no informed professional analyst would disagree with this

I could name several, but am literally not allowed to. And unlike you, I actually work with these people.

Yep, it provided a marginal but predictable boost to AFL ratings.

What sort of boost are we talking? Do you have any comparison data at all?

It will be interesting to see what foxtel comes up with given that the double counting / not counting problem has been worse (missing regional WA as well) for STV

Worth noting that the VOZ/Total TV system today does not include Kayo. Kantar is supposedly going to address this, but I will not be surprised if its kept commercial in confidence.

 

[The_Wookie]

Well the tv networks have always clearly placed more value on other metrics and thought the ones posted weren't painting the true picture, otherwise the AFL wouldn't smack the competitors by so much each time the tv rights come around. It's now moved to a more common sense approach.

Even on ratings average over time, the AFL would have smacked them all.

I think the complaints come from the types wookie speaks of because 1. It stuffs all their previous data 2. It's not as descriptive as it was previously (ie. City by city).

Its not even close to being as descriptive. Its not even metro and regional and stv. The breakdown is total tv and bvod.

You can see why 7 wanted this change, their two sports are the longest running in time, footy and cricket, so it's advantageous to them. You wonder why 9 agreed to it, but it might be beneficial to them in low balling the nrl on their next rights deal which is currently in negotiation.

Seven wanted it because according to them 7plus is the largest FTA streaming platform with 13 million subcribers. Nine want it because Tennis and Origin and major events it has rights to, rate through the roof.

I don't get the double counting issue that you've spoken of previously, what was that about?

Certain postcodes - generally on the gold coast, in North Sydney and a few other places - were counted in both RegTAM and OzTAM. This offered a minor inflation to NRL ratings which was removed in VOZ.

VOZ overnights did not - and still dont - include the NT and some other areas, this is where consolidated ratings come in.

Also I didn't gather from the foxtel information if they will also be moving to a reach based table, or sticking with the average calculation.

At this stage no one knows. Kantar is due to launch soon, VOZ isnt including Kayo (although it likely is including Foxtel Go/Now). Knowing Fox it will hold Kantar data inhouse, just like STAN and Paramount+ do.

 

[The Educator]

Its relevance of the data to the overall broadcast audience given reach is literally based on people who watch at least 1 minute of a broadcast. Its no different to calling out participation data from Ausplay for under 15s that uses the "played once a year" as a metric.

Reach simply means the number of people that engaged for at least a minute. Its relevance is really straight forward - how many people engaged with (in this case) a sporting event

In terms of your participation analogy, aggregating averages would be most like comparing "number of teams"

I could name several, but am literally not allowed to. And unlike you, I actually work with these people.

I thought you were a hostel manager? You mean you collaborate with these people in your hobby

You're apparently not even allowed to mention what their actual logic / argument is! I don't really care who they are

What sort of boost are we talking? Do you have any comparison data at all?

I looked at it last year when they were releasing both. OZtam have pulled their data down....

NRL metro ratings dropped marginally (presumably from the double counting correction) and the AFL regionals were higher (presumably from the rest of Australia)

Worth noting that the VOZ/Total TV system today does not include Kayo. Kantar is supposedly going to address this, but I will not be surprised if its kept commercial in confidence.

I suspect there will be an expectation that they will release it

 

[The_Wookie]

Reach simply means the number of people that engaged for at least a minute. Its relevance is really straight forward - how many people engaged with (in this case) a sporting event

And its considered a garbage measure according to everyone I know.

In terms of your participation analogy, aggregating averages would be most like comparing "number of teams"

Not even close.

I thought you were a hostel manager? You mean you collaborate with these people in your hobby

What I do for a living is literally none of your business - but I work full time as a hotel manager - not a hostel manager. A man can have multiple jobs. I mean I have worked with and for these people for almost 5 years, and been referenced for years before that.

Im sure you can tell us all about your extensive work in the industry though.

Also. Im tired of these personal attacks from you when it comes to what I do with ratings information and data. Knock it off or stay off the industry board if you cant. I wont warn you again.

You're apparently not even allowed to mention what their actual logic / argument is! I don't really care who they are

Anonymous sourcing is a thing. Its called people not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them when you have a single source of any information that you need to do your job. Or maybe it was a conversation in twitter dms.

And whether you care or not is immaterial. That you dont know or dont have the contacts to know does not mean the information does not exist.

I looked at it last year when they were releasing both. OZtam have pulled their data down....

That IS convenient for you. So no actual data to support your theory. Based on your previously established thoughts - that should mean your unverified and unavailable information should be ignored.

NRL metro ratings dropped marginally (presumably from the double counting correction) and the AFL regionals were higher (presumably from the rest of Australia)

Did they really though, because I get this feeling you cant prove that either.

I suspect there will be an expectation that they will release it

Maybe, but the fact is no other streamer does at present, theres no real need for them to do so.

 

[Bjo187]

Reach is better, it picks up the significant percentage of AFL fans like myself that have a wife or kids that don't watch whole neutral games (due to having a mrs that wants to watch something else on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday night) and so i only watch the first and last quarters on those nights.

This was a big disadvantage to sports that run for longer > 2 hours like the AFL does, coz viewers were averaged out over such a long time, compared to sports that run between 1 and 2 hours that aren't very time consuming and don't take over the entire night on tv for the family.

One thing I am unsure of is the one minute. This will mean big events that people have zero interest in but flick over just to see who's playing, or the crowd or whatever, will still be recorded. Like the other night with the tennis final, I flicked on then flicked back off never to switch over again.

I think 3 or 5 mins shows someone has a bit of interest compared to near none in the 1 minute category.

I also wonder if the 1 minute has to be reached each time you click on, or cumulative? Could I do 10, 50 seconds flick overs and still not be recorded, yet one person that flicks on for 61 seconds one time does?

Anyway the new ratings still give the average audience anyway and I've always thought all of Australia should appear instead of just the 5 capital cities, so that's an improvement. It is less data though, as I typically liked to see how the footy was rating in each city, so that's a loss just for curiosity sake.

 

[The_Wookie]

Anyway the new ratings still give the average audience anyway and I've always thought all of Australia should appear instead of just the 5 capital cities, so that's an improvement. It is less data though, as I typically liked to see how the footy was rating in each city, so that's a loss just for curiosity sake.

We've been able to get regional ratings for some time. VOZ has done them since April 30 2023, and before that the daily 7day and 28 day consolidated ratings had them. RegTam also contained other markets.

 

[Bjo187]

We've been able to get regional ratings for some time. VOZ has done them since April 30 2023, and before that the daily 7day and 28 day consolidated ratings had them. RegTam also contained other markets.

Yeah I remember that, however I was too lazy to check across multiple platforms, so I do like seeing an all of Australia reading now in the one place.

 

[The Educator]

And its considered a garbage measure according to everyone I know.



Not even close.



What I do for a living is literally none of your business - but I work full time as a hotel manager - not a hostel manager. A man can have multiple jobs. I mean I have worked with and for these people for almost 5 years, and been referenced for years before that.

Im sure you can tell us all about your extensive work in the industry though.

Also. Im tired of these personal attacks from you when it comes to what I do with ratings information and data. Knock it off or stay off the industry board if you cant. I wont warn you again.



Anonymous sourcing is a thing. Its called people not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them when you have a single source of any information that you need to do your job. Or maybe it was a conversation in twitter dms.

And whether you care or not is immaterial. That you dont know or dont have the contacts to know does not mean the information does not exist.



That IS convenient for you. So no actual data to support your theory. Based on your previously established thoughts - that should mean your unverified and unavailable information should be ignored.



Did they really though, because I get this feeling you cant prove that either.



Maybe, but the fact is no other streamer does at present, theres no real need for them to do so.

Ahh, man. You are so hypersensitive given how narky you are yourself.

I pointed out you haven't actually provided a rationale and that just pointing to anonymous people "ridiculing" something is what is called ad vercundiam fallacy. As soon as you appeal to authority your actual profession is directly relevant to that appeal.

"Everyone I know" is a 101 example of ad populum fallacy.

I'd be generally interested in hearing an actual rationale but if my opinions are so grating to you than you can just not respond in the first instance perhaps?

I just offered a response to someone else in relation to this new model of doing ratings. You have engaged me in the first instance, splitting out my comment, knowing full well I straight up think you are wrong. A few response later and you resort to threats again....

Reach is better, it picks up the significant percentage of AFL fans like myself that have a wife or kids that don't watch whole neutral games (due to having a mrs that wants to watch something else on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday night) and so i only watch the first and last quarters on those nights.

This was a big disadvantage to sports that run for longer > 2 hours like the AFL does, coz viewers were averaged out over such a long time, compared to sports that run between 1 and 2 hours that aren't very time consuming and don't take over the entire night on tv for the family.

You have spoken the actual truth!

One thing I am unsure of is the one minute. This will mean big events that people have zero interest in but flick over just to see who's playing, or the crowd or whatever, will still be recorded. Like the other night with the tennis final, I flicked on then flicked back off never to switch over again.

I think 3 or 5 mins shows someone has a bit of interest compared to near none in the 1 minute category.

I actually don't think it matters much beyond a point. This is speculation but I suspect that the reach figure with a 5 minute minimum would probably be over 95% of a reach with a 1 minute minimum. And it wouldn't vary much between team spectator sports as a share of total reach

 

[The Educator]

I looked at it last year when they were releasing both. OZtam have pulled their data down....

NRL metro ratings dropped marginally (presumably from the double counting correction) and the AFL regionals were higher (presumably from the rest of Australia)

That IS convenient for you. So no actual data to support your theory. Based on your previously established thoughts - that should mean your unverified and unavailable information should be ignored.



Did they really though, because I get this feeling you cant prove that either.

And, it turns out you can still access historic ratings through search!

Using last years preliminary final as an example......

Friday 22 September 2023

Total TV Daily Overnight Top 30 Programs Top 30 Programs - Free-to-Air - Total People - Total TV Rank Description Network Total TV Broadcast Metro Broadcast Regional BVOD National 1 SEVEN’S AFL: FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL FINALS Seven 1,410,000 1,020,000 390,000 0 2 SEVEN NEWS Seven...

forums.mediaspy.org

https://www.regionaltam.com.au/upload/weekly-reports/RegTAM-20230917-E2RegFTARankSumCons.pdf

	Oz TAM	Reg Tam		VOZ			Difference
	Metro	Regional		Metro	Regional		Metro	Regional
AFL	1020​	355​		1020​	390​		0​	-35​
NRL	492​	302*		462​	313​		30​
		*Not in weekly top 10 in WA / TAS

So NRL metro "lost" about 6 % of its metro audience and the AFL gained about 10% of its regional.

 

[The_Wookie]

Since they are now publicly rubbishig it

 

[Bjo187]

Since they are now publicly rubbishig it

I don't get what Colin Vickery (whoever he is) is whingeing about. The average is still in the column right next to the reach.

Idol is more popular than nemesis because more people turned it on during the night, it's a flick on, flick off show, where people wish to watch a particular artist perform and not another one, it also has a long running time and is on each season for a significant period of time. Nemesis is a one off political series that you wouldn't just flick on and off or you'd miss important parts, a show made for the die hard political fans, but not as mainstream. The figures actually represent this perfectly in my opinion.

 

[The Educator]

I don't get what Colin Vickery (whoever he is) is whingeing about. The average is still in the column right next to the reach.

Exactly right. It is not like they are no longer reporting the average ratings. The dude is whinging about what is being used to rank

Idol is more popular than nemesis because more people turned it on during the night, it's a flick on, flick off show, where people wish to watch a particular artist perform and not another one, it also has a long running time and is on each season for a significant period of time. Nemesis is a one off political series that you wouldn't just flick on and off or you'd miss important parts, a show made for the die hard political fans, but not as mainstream. The figures actually represent this perfectly in my opinion.

Correct again, it is an apple and oranges comparison when you are comparing two different genres of show.

This is where you need actual analysts which this guy clearly isn't as demonstrated by....

Here is where Reach is a dodgy indicator of a show’s popularity.Aussie Idol had a Reach of 1.784 million and an average of 787,000 last night. Nemesis had a Reach of 1.427 million but averaged 887,000. So clearly viewers stuck with Nemesis in a way they didn’t with Idol.

This is just shallow analysis. There are a range of factors that are relevant

1. genre of show - some shows (definitely sports, possibly reality / competition TV shows) would have far more people watching a portion of the show than drama / docos
2. ads - abc does not have ads so less channel surfing
3. show length - (the AFL v NRL problem) where a higher ration of reach to average is just a function of people watching some portion being counted more in the average

The point is, more generally, you have two data points now rather than one to carry out analyses. No analytically competent person would think have extra data points is a bad thing. Having both Reach and averages helps unpack these things over time.

Of the links provided above, the only really significant point is the possibility that reach figures could be inflated by people tuning in to the next show and catching the last minute of the previous one. This could be a factor (when it comes to football ratings) particularly on Sundays with the news. It certainly makes the case for a longer "minimum time" requirement

Other than that relatively minor factor though, none of the above contests the clear superiority of accumulated reach data in comparing relative TV audiences of the AFL and NRL (rather than accumulated averages).

Reach would very slightly advantage the longer game (i.e. AFL) but averages are just plain misleading. As I have clearly demonstrated several times (and you have clearly grasped).

 

[Rob]

I don't get what Colin Vickery (whoever he is) is whingeing about. The average is still in the column right next to the reach.

Idol is more popular than nemesis because more people turned it on during the night, it's a flick on, flick off show, where people wish to watch a particular artist perform and not another one, it also has a long running time and is on each season for a significant period of time. Nemesis is a one off political series that you wouldn't just flick on and off or you'd miss important parts, a show made for the die hard political fans, but not as mainstream. The figures actually represent this perfectly in my opinion.

It's like complaining about kicks as a stat because it doesn't take into account where those kicks go.

Joe had 20 kicks, but his metres gained was only 350! Yet Dave had only 15 kicks but had 600 metres gained! Kicks is a rubbish stat and they shouldn't even report it