Are TV ratings worth anything

[RedV3x]

It does seem rather pointless to have an exacting analysis of in-exacting data and so many variables.
The first measure surely has to be attendance.
How many people are prepared to put in the resources of time and money to attend a game?
Even so, there are variables inherent to this measure like weather, time, day, alternatives, convenience and cost.
Sponsorship is the value commerce puts on club and it is generally proportional to the strength of a club.
It would be extremely funny the amount of notice people put on ratings if it weren't for the money involved.
It's a sample, a small sample determined by the television industry not any independent body.
The accuracy of the the small selective group is determined by the ethics and discipline of people to lazy to go to a game.
People don't even have to be awake or even watching the game.
That is why lead in programs such as the news are so important - people are too lazy to change.
Any what are we measuring? Passionate football watching? No, we are measuring TV choices at a particular time.
That depends a lot on what the alternatives are at that particular time not any particular interest.
So keep knocking yourselves out over ratings because IMO they are over-rated.

 

[stupidlikeafox]

It does seem rather pointless to have an exacting analysis of in-exacting data and so many variables.
The first measure surely has to be attendance.
How many people are prepared to put in the resources of time and money to attend a game?
Even so, there are variables inherent to this measure like weather, time, day, alternatives, convenience and cost.
Sponsorship is the value commerce puts on club and it is generally proportional to the strength of a club.
It would be extremely funny the amount of notice people put on ratings if it weren't for the money involved.
It's a sample, a small sample determined by the television industry not any independent body.
The accuracy of the the small selective group is determined by the ethics and discipline of people to lazy to go to a game.
People don't even have to be awake or even watching the game.
That is why lead in programs such as the news are so important - people are too lazy to change.
Any what are we measuring? Passionate football watching? No, we are measuring TV choices at a particular time.
That depends a lot on what the alternatives are at that particular time not any particular interest.
So keep knocking yourselves out over ratings because IMO they are over-rated.

For some people that comes in the form of an $800/year subscription to Foxtel.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It does seem rather pointless to have an exacting analysis of in-exacting data and so many variables.
The first measure surely has to be attendance.
How many people are prepared to put in the resources of time and money to attend a game?
Even so, there are variables inherent to this measure like weather, time, day, alternatives, convenience and cost.
Sponsorship is the value commerce puts on club and it is generally proportional to the strength of a club.
It would be extremely funny the amount of notice people put on ratings if it weren't for the money involved.
It's a sample, a small sample determined by the television industry not any independent body.
The accuracy of the the small selective group is determined by the ethics and discipline of people to lazy to go to a game.
People don't even have to be awake or even watching the game.
That is why lead in programs such as the news are so important - people are too lazy to change.
Any what are we measuring? Passionate football watching? No, we are measuring TV choices at a particular time.
That depends a lot on what the alternatives are at that particular time not any particular interest.
So keep knocking yourselves out over ratings because IMO they are over-rated.

a bit naive, in addition to the money connected to the TV ratings (the thing that makes a national league like the AFL possible)
Televised games allow supporters to follow their clubs more often, this is important in this day in age where 50% of the population work weekends and don't have the ability to attend anything more then a handful of games per year at best. Additionally in many areas, Sydney for example highlight that averages crowds have increased with more access to footy via more fta games.

contrast this with the NRL who went the other way and reduced there FTA coverage over the past 20 years and have seen crowds drop repeatedly during that time. like it or not televised games are an important factor in getting the wider public to engage with their clubs and rather then detracting from crowds, statistics show that clubs which get better coverage receive higher levels of sustained growth in terms of memberships and attendances then those who don't. (long term live against the gate is a myth)

This really shouldn't come as a surprise either, marketability and brand awareness are required to in order to attract people. Attendance is always important as it represents the core base of clubs. But what many footy fans simply fail to grasp is that support for AFL clubs even in heartland states represents just a fraction of the Australian public.

in order to grow your core basis you need to reach out and form a connection to the wider community, So that they identify with your club. One of the most effective ways to do that is via television.

 

[The_Wookie]

So keep knocking yourselves out over ratings because IMO they are over-rated.

Perhaps you need to stay out of a thread involving ratings then.

 

[RedV3x]

For some people that comes in the form of an $800/year subscription to Foxtel.

Whereas a true footy supporter would probably buy a digital pass.
Regardless, the system is different to ratings. Cable TV and internet TV can monitor access.
They only fudge is the average viewing for each access.
So yes, I agree that direct access viewing is a more accurate guide to viewing.
However, I presume companies keep their figures close to their chest.

 

[RedV3x]

Televised games allow supporters to follow their clubs more often.

Totally agree that FTA is extremely important besides ratings for growing the game.
I'm saying that ratings should not be used as an accurate figure for a multitude of reasons.

 

[RedV3x]

Perhaps you need to stay out of a thread involving ratings then.

Apart from pointing out their obvious flaws of the ratings system I do stick right out of rating wars.
I find it hilarious that nobody can agree what the actual ratings figures are for a program.
I guess that is on purpose to confuse advertisers.
It'd be nice to have an accurate measuring system.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Apart from pointing out their obvious flaws of the ratings system I do stick right out of rating wars.
I find it hilarious that nobody can agree what the actual ratings figures are for a program.
I guess that is on purpose to confuse advertisers.
It'd be nice to have an accurate measuring system.

Not sure how many ratings boxes there are in Australia - maybe 4,000 - i cant remember but i have never known of anyone that has one, have never known of anyone who knows anyone who has had one, maybe people while they have them are sworn to secrecy which i guess makes sense and maybe they really pick their subjects carefully but it begs the question then if that actually reflects the average Australian or average Australian TV watcher.

Does anyone know anyone who know anyone who has ever had a ratings box, i would be interested to know, it's not like one ratings box per person it is per household and that could mean 5 or 6 or maybe even more people living there, the system is decades old isn't it !!, yet i have never heard of anyone with one.

Whats the chances of running into a old school friend in another country or state that you haven't seen for years - well i have done it, most people have or have a similar story, yet i know nobody who has had a ratings box after decades and if there are 4,000 at family homes per year, i wonder how many people they have exposed to !.

 

[jatz14]

Not sure how many ratings boxes there are in Australia - maybe 4,000 - i cant remember but i have never known of anyone that has one, have never known of anyone who knows anyone who has had one, maybe people while they have them are sworn to secrecy which i guess makes sense and maybe they really pick their subjects carefully but it begs the question then if that actually reflects the average Australian or average Australian TV watcher.

Does anyone know anyone who know anyone who has ever had a ratings box, i would be interested to know, it's not like one ratings box per person it is per household and that could mean 5 or 6 or maybe even more people living there, the system is decades old isn't it !!, yet i have never heard of anyone with one.

Whats the chances of running into a old school friend in another country or state that you haven't seen for years - well i have done it, most people have or have a similar story, yet i know nobody who has had a ratings box after decades and if there are 4,000 at family homes per year, i wonder how many people they have exposed to !.

As a kid, we had the ratings log book for a while. You had to record what you watched and who was there, which we did religiously for like, 3 days. After that, we maybe recorded it, so the ratings depended on who was watching, and how likely they were to record.

 

[Rob]

Not sure how many ratings boxes there are in Australia - maybe 4,000 - i cant remember but i have never known of anyone that has one, have never known of anyone who knows anyone who has had one, maybe people while they have them are sworn to secrecy which i guess makes sense and maybe they really pick their subjects carefully but it begs the question then if that actually reflects the average Australian or average Australian TV watcher.

Does anyone know anyone who know anyone who has ever had a ratings box, i would be interested to know, it's not like one ratings box per person it is per household and that could mean 5 or 6 or maybe even more people living there, the system is decades old isn't it !!, yet i have never heard of anyone with one.

Whats the chances of running into a old school friend in another country or state that you haven't seen for years - well i have done it, most people have or have a similar story, yet i know nobody who has had a ratings box after decades and if there are 4,000 at family homes per year, i wonder how many people they have exposed to !.

None of what you say is really that relevant. Statistically, 4000 ratings boxes are likely to give an accurate indication of viewing habits around Australia for the major networks *if* they're evenly distributed across all demographic groups.

The numbers that are most likely to be out of whack are for the multichannels and the Fox stations that get extremely small audiences. Last time I checked, there were 480 boxes in Perth, so around 1 in every 2000 or so households. 2 people in 1 OZTAM household watching one TV show in full will result in the average audience for that show of about 4000. If you say the show has a real audience of 10,000, it's probably considered very possible that anywhere between zero and 5 ratings boxes are in houses with those 10,000 people, resulting in a rating of between zero and 20000. There's a big variation there.But for shows that get 150,000 audiences that variation is insignificant.

In the context of AFL ratings, I reckon that's why you see much wilder variations in Sydney and Brisbane ratings than you do in Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth.

 

[stupidlikeafox]

Whereas a true footy supporter would probably buy a digital pass.
Regardless, the system is different to ratings. Cable TV and internet TV can monitor access.
They only fudge is the average viewing for each access.
So yes, I agree that direct access viewing is a more accurate guide to viewing.
However, I presume companies keep their figures close to their chest.

Digital Pass is shithouse quality and doesn't off the variety and volume of AFL based programs that in my opinion make me a passionate fan.

Furthermore, STV does not have the capacity to measure ratings though the Foxtel IQ box and in fact uses OZTAM just like Commercial TV so I don't know where you are getting your info from:

OzTAM TV ratings are television audience estimates based on actual viewing behaviour in homes across Australia’s mainland metropolitan markets and nationally for subscription television.

http://www.oztam.com.au/theratingsprocess.aspx

 

[RedV3x]

i cant remember but i have never known of anyone that has one.

My family had a box. We were chosen because we were in fact domiciled as a family.
The diary system was long dead. They had a box which every person logged themselves and guests onto.
Boxes could be loaded up to 20 viewers. Every viewing device was logged. TVs, DVDs, games etc.
Problems. The black boxes struggled with the various technologies as well as down loading the information.
People are not disciplined to continually log-in and log-out.
Only families are used and of course this skews the outlook a lot.
From memory, one viewer is equal to 20k of the viewing public so if I'm joined by my mates and watch the WAFL I could account for ratings of 100k. Obviously our viewing habits were too far out of the norm because they removed the boxes not long after installing them.

On the other side, I met an ex-executive for CH9 in Perth and we discussed ratings and all the ways that ratings can be, and were being manipulated, from suburb location down to boxes being given to friends of Ch9.

It's a figure generated by a sample, a selected sample.

 

[RedV3x]

Furthermore, STV does not have the capacity to measure ratings though the Foxtel IQ box and in fact uses OZTAM just like Commercial TV so I don't know where you are getting your info from:

Any digital entity has the capacity to measure accurately it's product usage.
It cannot determine the exact audience but I believe it's a simple product per television screen.
Mobile devices would normally be viewed by one person per screen you'd expect.

Ratings will continue to be important for some time but with sports especially, specific digital products provide accurate viewing measurements and the value of these products is rising quickly.
Can anybody provide these figures?

 

[The_Wookie]

Any digital entity has the capacity to measure accurately it's product usage.

Maybe they do, but Foxtel dont release these.

It cannot determine the exact audience but I believe it's a simple product per television screen.

What basis is this belief from?

Mobile devices would normally be viewed by one person per screen you'd expect.

Mobile and web streaming is measured completely differently, ad we do get some vague figures for these generally annually.

Ratings will continue to be important for some time but with sports especially, specific digital products provide accurate viewing measurements and the value of these products is rising quickly.
Can anybody provide these figures?

Feel free to find your own.

 

[manicmagpie]

Even the actual ratings are known to double count some people, so they appear in both metro and regional ratings. If you add in the fact that even real ratings are guestimates based on a relatively small sample, then the whole thread is one big guess.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

yeah, pretty much, but I suppose its all we have

TV buyers use them & spend $millions & you reckon its a big guess.

I think I've posted this before - Monty Python's 'Building put up by hypnosis' sketch. Basically it's a perfect metaphor for TV ratings - stop believing in them and the whole thing comes crashing down.



Multi million dollar decisions, people's jobs and careers etc based on almost nothing. The pitiful sample sizes, the ignoring of some areas and duplication of others, the fact that it's always the same people sampled, the fact that users with boxes still (IIRC) manually input how many people in their house are watching all add up to a load of unscientific nonsense.

 

[Kwality]

Ratings companies sell their "research" to TV companies so they can attract advertising dollars.
As such everybody is searching for the highest possible figures. but they are only a guide and a relative guide at best.
It's statistical sampling which skews towards populist programs.
As companies have "refined" their data gathering over time the ratings for minor programs rise and major programs decrease.
It is counter-productive for these companies to produce true figures let alone effective viewing figures.
As such, survey devices are only installed in large families that fit a family profile because it's much cheaper and it produces the results that they are after.
As well, if a survey devices produces a significant deviation from the "norm" - it is then removed.
There are many ways ratings can be manipulated by both companies and viewers and of course - users.
It is a total joke to state that some rating figure is anywhere near correct but, and it's the biggest "but" around -
it's the only mechanism we have to present to advertisers wrt FTA.
With the continuing change to pay-for view systems ratings will become increasingly irrelevant.

Anyone spending advertising dollars monitors the effectiveness of the spend, get a feel for what works what doesn't, meantime the TV ratings continue to be produced & IMHO are used.
Good example of advertisers moving their spend is the rivers of gold & Fairfax, it stopped being effective.

 

[RedV3x]

get a feel for what works what doesn't, .

Yes, it's the vibe....definitely the vibe of the thing.

 

[Garlic muncher]

My family had a box. We were chosen because we were in fact domiciled as a family.
The diary system was long dead. They had a box which every person logged themselves and guests onto.
Boxes could be loaded up to 20 viewers. Every viewing device was logged. TVs, DVDs, games etc.
Problems. The black boxes struggled with the various technologies as well as down loading the information.
People are not disciplined to continually log-in and log-out.
Only families are used and of course this skews the outlook a lot.
From memory, one viewer is equal to 20k of the viewing public so if I'm joined by my mates and watch the WAFL I could account for ratings of 100k. Obviously our viewing habits were too far out of the norm because they removed the boxes not long after installing them.

On the other side, I met an ex-executive for CH9 in Perth and we discussed ratings and all the ways that ratings can be, and were being manipulated, from suburb location down to boxes being given to friends of Ch9.

It's a figure generated by a sample, a selected sample.

That's a very interesting post, thanks for that, i am sceptical and suspicious at the best of times of Government, big companies etc, so i take with a grain of salt possible self serving TV ratings, not to say i don't think in general they reflect general viewer patterns, but i think - and of course this is just MO - that i think there are real grey areas around ratings and the error of both sides of a ratingsmay be much more or less than what they would have you believe.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, it's the vibe....definitely the vibe of the thing.

OR sales dollars v advertising spend ....

 

[RedV3x]

There's a big variation there.But for shows that get 150,000 audiences that variation is insignificant.

In the context of AFL ratings, I reckon that's why you see much wilder variations in Sydney and Brisbane ratings than you do in Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth.

This is the main point wrt to BF is that the lower numbers are highly inaccurate and nearly meaningless e.g. Perth rl ratings.

Obviously sampling works better popular programs.
Obviously ratings ARE WORTH $BILLIONS.
Obviously ratings will remain for a long while.
Other forms of rating other products are growing all the time and are arguably less open to debate.

 

[Rob]

This is the main point wrt to BF is that the lower numbers are highly inaccurate and nearly meaningless e.g. Perth rl ratings.

Well no, I don't think they're highly inaccurate at all. If a show doesn't rate it's fair to assume very few people are watching it.

What you can't really do with any certainty is take large percentage movements for programs that don't rate as gospel.

Say the AFL gets 20k in Sydney one Friday then gets 30k the next. It's highly likely that there isn't an actual 50% increase in viewer numbers, because you're talking about a tiny number of ratings boxes that affect those figures. It might be as simple as one bloke staying home one night because he's got the flu.

 

[Kwality]

This is the main point wrt to BF is that the lower numbers are highly inaccurate and nearly meaningless e.g. Perth rl ratings.

Obviously sampling works better popular programs.
Obviously ratings ARE WORTH $BILLIONS.
Obviously ratings will remain for a long while.
Other forms of rating other products are growing all the time and are arguably less open to debate.

Why aren't the TV moguls using other forms or are they ? Don't limit yourself to Aus, its an international business, big money involved ...

 

[RedV3x]

Well no, I don't think they're highly inaccurate at all. If a show doesn't rate it's fair to assume very few people are watching it.

What you can't really do with any certainty is take large percentage movements for programs that don't rate as gospel.

Say the AFL gets 20k in Sydney one Friday then gets 30k the next. It's highly likely that there isn't an actual 50% increase in viewer numbers, because you're talking about a tiny number of ratings boxes that affect those figures. It might be as simple as one bloke staying home one night because he's got the flu.

I think you just backed up my point that low figures ARE highly inaccurate and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[RedV3x]

Why aren't the TV moguls using other forms or are they ? Don't limit yourself to Aus, its an international business, big money involved ...

Well companies are using ratings from different sources or are at least aware of non TV viewing.
That is why you see advertisements in all forms of media.
Whilst these other forms of viewing are more easily and accurately attained they have drawbacks for advertisers in the effectiveness of add placement.
If you google ratings cynicism you will see a myriad of problems that suggest actual viewing "ratings" could be much higher.
The biggest traditional problem with ratings wrt advertisers is time shifting.
Time shifting ratings are rejected as being (advertising) useless so watching a recorded game doesn't rate.
Another problem is group viewing. Viewing in public places cannot be taken into account.
Internet viewing is growing all the time and advertisers have looked at that though the effectiveness has been questioned recently and that is not intrinsically part of Television ratings but definite a part of adverting.
Similarly subscription viewing is usually funded by subscription but increasingly advertising is making up the shortfall and that uses the internal ratings of the subscription company.
Pay-for-view is easily understood with people paying directly for the product. there cannot be any ambiguity there.
Not only has a person paid to view AFL he hasn't paid to watch a movie and vv.
There is also a lot of computer viewing that contains advertising. In fact it's impossible not to come across it.
That goes for news services all the way down to forums. Most entities offer subscription in lieu of advertising.
So do people want to talk about ratings or how many people are watching (sport).?

 

[Kwality]

So TV ratings remain the prime indicator of viewing habits.

Stephen Lowy, FFA chairman covered the ground this way:
Lowy and his boardroom colleagues are also hoping to cash in on the fragmentation of the media market and the opportunity that a number of new media platforms might offer as commercial partners who could boost the game's earning capacity.

"We have a clear understanding of the changes that have occurred in the market with regards to FTA, subscription and with the newer methods of digital distribution," he told journalists in a briefing after speaking to a Melbourne Victory in Business lunch on Friday afternoon.

"Clearly an objective is to maximise the revenue for the game, but also having a very important eye on how and who can impact and grow the game with us."

He did stress the importance of a free-to-air deal with a network with a broader reach than SBS, the traditional soccer broadcaster, and said if the current deal could be changed early it would be.

"Subscription TV accounts for about a third of the households in the country; that's not enough," Lowy said. "The current penetration of SBS is far too low – it's below everybody's expectations, below SBS's, ours and the A-League clubs.

"That has a year to run. To the extent that can be adjusted in the year it requires the agreement of SBS, Fox Sports and us. If that can be achieved we will work towards that. It's clearly a sub optimal situation right now.

"There is a very strong interest from FTA. You have seen the interest, what Seven did with the Matildas, Seven and Nine have both taken an active interest in international games ... that's very interesting.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/spo...e-drawn-on-dollar-target-20160429-goijld.html


Of course there will be those who will compare the total value of a sports media deals in a P155 dribbling contest, just as they do TV ratings numbers/markets. In Aus & relating back to Mr Lowy, the TV appeal of soccer internationals has no comparable offering from AFL footy & possibly is comparable with the NRLs Origin series so back to ratings.