Why do you write it as total instead of total average audience?
The total viewers, is actually the reach figure of all audiences. If they don't give that for all, then you need to specify that you're talking about total average viewers.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Play Nice The Reach is King thread
- Thread starter Bjo187
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Why do you write it as total instead of total average audience?
The total viewers, is actually the reach figure of all audiences. If they don't give that for all, then you need to specify that you're talking about total average viewers.
- Moderator
- #2
Because thats how we've always done it where average audiences are concerned.
Ive been doing this long enough that I dont really need to redefine what im doing every time some new guy pops into a thread.
Note: VOZ uses the term Total TV to express average audiences.
- Thread starter
- #3
But the way of measuring changed to reflect the actual total, which was long awaited. I don't think I'm new either I've been coming to tv ratings threads forever. I just think it's misleading and inaccurate. Total isn't an average, total is the full amount of people that tuned into the game. Just saying..
- Moderator
- #4
No one really wanted a change in how TV ratings were reported. Most people hate the reach. Read a bit of TVtonight and media spy for reference.
But bigger numbers look better for the FTA networks. But I am leaving it at that
The_Wookie , if I see the city breakdown on another forum, can I copy that data here? Or would we be breaking one of Oztams silly copyright rules?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Moderator
- #5
Nah thats not good enough for the experts here.
yeah go for it, mediaspy are posting them
- Moderator
- #6
Reach has always been around, just not the primary ranking
And again, Oztam itself refers to the averages as Total TV - metro/regional and BVOD combined.
So Im going to keep doing what Ive been doing for the last ten years.
- Thread starter
- #7
But you haven't posted reach previously I don't think.
It's like if I came into your hotel at closing time and asked you how many customers did you have in total today? Am i to expect you'd give me the average of people inside the hotel at random intervals chosen throughout the day then? Or the total number of people that came into your hotel that day?
It's misleading to the reader and I hope it's not being done to appease the sooking you'd cop over at league unlimited. It's also why idiots like Vlandy's make the claim that nrl has more eyeballs than any other sport in Australia. It's factually incorrect and a blatant lie, but he can use that when the data is misleading by not stating your definition of total, is actually the average total..... not the total audience.
Can you post the reach for those locations? That's the true picture in non rusted on markets if people switched on and had a look more than usual. I didn't watch the full games of those two either and I'm a footy nuffie. It happens with all my friends in relationships too, you watch a bit of footy then flick back and forth depending on the score. Exposure to the game, seeing a packed out stadium and watching a close last quarter is where you wanna see if it touched more local eyeballs than usual.
- Moderator
- #8
This isn't hotels, this is TV.
Reach for 1 min is a total joke of a system. This goes beyond AFL v NRL. It is all about FTA showcasing the bigger number to feel important
You say Vlandy makes claims with misleading data. Welcome to the world. Why do you think Oztam is so protective of its data? It is to allow 2 FTA channels to say "we number 1" This change makes such claims harder to dispute.
Well no, I can not. The data is given on average. funny that. If you want, you can buy Oztams data release. I am not sure if they will have it or not.
Also, Peak would be a better indicator of what you are saying. We did get peak data a little pre 2023 so can compare. But we have to rely on TV networks for that information.
I would not consider someone who watched 1 min of action a relevant statistic
- Thread starter
- #9
The principle is the same. I want to know total customers, it's the top metric for sporting contests when comparing two sports. Averages isn't, because running times vary so greatly, it's really comparing apples and oranges.
Sorry if it upsets you that the afl is the most watched sport in the country and that the archaic system has finally been updated to reflect truer numbers of customers tuning in.
I agree peak would be good to see though.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #10
Oztam didnt care about reach so much for terrestrial tv until this year. Reach data is rarely available.
I wouldnt tell you for a start.
Customers who came in for a minute and left...arent going to be customers. We wouldnt be telling you about every visitor that came into the reception area. Customers are guests who actually check in for the day. And that number is vastly different,
In fact this is the perfect comparison for what you want.
Folks come in all day to visit people, ask questions, drop things off, talk to staff, collect items - but the ones who matter on any given day are the guests in house. That number is a fraction of the other.
Reach is effectively the same as me counting anyone who called, anyone who came through the front door, and trying to claim they had a material impact on the business. Reality is the ones who matter are the ones who actually use our services.
Im currently getting more whinging about this from one or two people here than Ive ever gotten on LeagueUnlimited, or fourfourtwo or greenandgoldrugby or twitter (which is where most of my audience is).
Its not misleading to anyone involved except you and your other mate over here. Other than the networks who want to trumpet figures. No one cares about reach data. no one wanted reach data. Outside of this forum, Ive not seen a single person who gives a damn.
We dont make new definitions up to please one or two people. I will continue to post the data in the way that I have here on Bigfooty and twitter for the last 12 years.
And I wont have this discussion every week, so get it out of your system quick.
- Thread starter
- #11
Yeah and we should be looking at oztam for cutting edge service? My mates family had a box growing up in his house and the family still do, he told me all about the system and and told me how archaic it is. So lets also stick with the old radio system of a written survey too then and only report that data in the traditional way coz you've 'always done it that way'?
We finally get a newer more updated and accurate way of reading the data (to add to the old system) and these companies and yourself reject it because it throws out all your old data and doesn't look as nice on an xcel table? Please.
The reality is every single tv has a tv guide on their television now, so nobody tunes into shows they have no interest in for over a minute, why would you?
The old system you're sticking with is back in the days of the green guide, where only about 20 percent of people had a paper tv guide on hand, so the majority had to sit on stations for minutes waiting.. waiting... to work out what show is on when the commercial break ended. That's when reach was useless, now for comparing sports it's the best measure of how many people are interested enough to engage in your product. It's the same with the 15 seconds for streaming, it makes sense, coz nobody streams something for 15 seconds they don't wanna engage with when there is a guide on their screen right in front of their eyes to tell them what it is they're clicking on.
No it's like counting how many rooms you have booked for the night but only counting in the number all the rooms that are occupied at random intervals throughout the day. We have 100 rooms booked, you'd be saying 'total 65', by the system you're using. Lets not count the full customers that are engaging in your business and have a room booked, only those in the rooms at the times you decide to count.
Of course you aren't coz you're carrying the narrative still that rugby league is the most watched sport in the country, by saying 'total' instead of 'average total'. It's completely misleading. The AFL had 500k more people watch the game the other night, you're saying 'total' that the nrl game had 3k more viewers, it's factually incorrect, no matter how much you hate the updated system.
It's just adding in one word before 'total' to not mislead the reader. It doesn't ruin your old data and it improves the clarity for all readers of your data new and old. I seriously don't get the issue, other than a stamping your feet protest against the new system.
- Moderator
- #12
what wookie said
Also, Test cricket and tennis have both had higher reaches than the AFL so far this year. Aus Open reached 4.4 mil while test cricket reached 2.2 mil. If test cricket ever gets coded for a whole days play.......
Sunday 28 January 2024 | TV Tonight
Total TV National Reach: AUSTRALIAN OPEN D15 -MEN'S FINAL Nine 4,767,000 SEVEN NEWS Seven 2,540,000 AUSTRALIAN OPEN D15 -PRE MATCH Nine 2,386,000 SEVEN'S CRICKET: SECOND TEST - AUS V WI Seven 2,207,000 AUSTRALIAN OPEN D15 -PRES Nine 2,052,000
tvtonight.com.au
read the comments and the headings on that page. You should send Oztam an email
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"
- Thread starter
- #13
what wookie said
Also, Test cricket and tennis have both had higher reaches than the AFL so far this year. Aus Open reached 4.4 mil while test cricket reached 2.2 mil. If test cricket ever gets coded for a whole days play.......
Sunday 28 January 2024 | TV Tonight
Total TV National Reach: AUSTRALIAN OPEN D15 -MEN'S FINAL Nine 4,767,000 SEVEN NEWS Seven 2,540,000 AUSTRALIAN OPEN D15 -PRE MATCH Nine 2,386,000 SEVEN'S CRICKET: SECOND TEST - AUS V WI Seven 2,207,000 AUSTRALIAN OPEN D15 -PRES Nine 2,052,000
read the comments and the headings on that page. You should send Oztam an email
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"
You're talking about one off big events, I'm talking about yearly total amount of viewers that tune into a sport.
The comparison you're referring to would be the Australian open men's final v the AFL grand final. If the Australian open wins that I'm happy to say more people engaged with that sport for its 'grand final' event.
- Moderator
- #14
Wait so Oztams REACH numbers are cool, but the rest of their data isnt? Be real dude.
This is also run by Oztam you know.
yes we are that petty. its simply because of that. Christ. I do not have enough sarcasm in me to respond
Reach is still useless. as far as almost everyone but you two are saying. But thanks for your input.
If you knew anything about hotel operations then youd know that we dont just have people in rooms "at random intervals". Its not how its done. And Im 10000000% confident I know that industry better than you.
Im saying total as defined by everybody except you. Period. its not up for debate.
Ill define however I damn well like. and the ONLY person over the weekend who has questioned it is people with your agenda. Specifically, one person. You.
So in short, no ill not be changing just for you. Thanks.
- Moderator
- #15
you obviously didn't get what I was hinting....Quite simply, the longer a TV show goes, the more "reach" it will get. Test cricket, if it was coded for one tv show, would have a huge reach, simply by many having people switch over to see the score over 7 hours. Heck, that is what I did for Brisbane v Carlton. I was certainly not engaged nor did consume any ads during the minute I watched.
You only like the new system because it puts AFL on top.
I hate the new system, because it sucks.
anyway, I leave it here. gett off discussion for the 2nd time thread
- Thread starter
- #16
Hang on, so you did engage in the Brisbane v Carlton game, you had an interest in the game so checked in and took in various in parts of it, more than once too by the sound of it? But you'd prefer to not be counted?
Interesting that if you were just checking the scores you probably weren't counted anyway, as that would take 15 seconds at most.
I'll give you a challenge, tune into something you have zero interest in for more than a minute with today's plethora of tv options, it's longer than you think and literally nobody does it. The only time reach can be an issue is overhang from big tv shows like the news going straight into a game or something, that is rare in afl games though, once every 10 games or so.
Which is exactly the reason you hate it so much (I've seen your posting history).
Your last sentence is probably right, but if a million people tuned in for a minute only, that's going to be reflected in the average.
As an example of just how much of a joke averages are when comparing 2 programs with varying lengths, lets look at the FTA numbers for Friday night. The AFL v NRL averages are actually pretty similar. 638k v 576k. But when you take into account reach as well, you can ascertain that:
AFL had total 1.933m viewers that watched 59.4 minutes on average (assuming a 180 minute run time)
NRL had 1.426m viewers that watched 48.5 minutes on average (assuming a 120 minute run time)
In terms of comparing audiences, it's a blowout. The AFL had half a million more watching, and for longer. Not even close. Yet the averages make you think it was. You can't pull the 1 minute card when the AFL had a significantly longer watch time.
Reach alone is a joke, but averages, when used on their lonesome, are just as much of a joke.
I suspect it's more so people pay for the data. From what I can work out it's not cheap to buy.
- Thread starter
- #19
Yeah but wookies data presents to me that the nrl beat the afl in the head to head 'total' viewers. There's no clarification on what he means by total, so that's what I and every other person will have to believe and go by. What's a half a million viewers matter these days anyway
.🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Moderator
- #20
Which it did as defined by Oztam and everybody else.
I dont have to clarify what Ive been doing for ten years. and the Oztam clearly prints on its faqs.
Im not discussing this further. And Ill not allow the thread to be derailed further with this.
Move on.
Where does Oztam define average ratings as the categorical, indisputable measure of popularity?
I would have thought Oztam would present the numbers, show how it calculated them and then let people draw their own conclusions.
- Moderator
- #22
Where did anyone say that it did?
I can only point to the following
- Oztam has primarily released average data since 2001
- Mediaweek, Mediaspy, Thinktv, decidertv, TVblackbox and every other site has used average ratings since 2001
- The leagues themselves have used average ratings since 2001.
- Seven and Nines PR releases deal with average ratings, and only occasionally in average
Prior to this year Reach was available generally only for major events and the occasional other event
- Thread starter
- #23
2001 where the tv world was completely different to what it is now, to give you an idea, what was there back then? sbs, abc, 7, 9, 10 and no tv guides on the actual tv, no streaming, minimal cabel tv. It just shows how truly outdated the averages system had become.
On another note, oztam release the data, but that applies to all tv where you can compare drama shows or the likes too, you however are working specifically with sports data, where we are directly comparing two sports against each other and one sport in particular is continually claiming incorrectly, that they get more viewers than any other sport in Australia.
I think if you are providing data for people to specifically compare, it should be as clear as possible, otherwise you continue to get shit like this, sent to me by my leaguie mate in QLD literally about 20 min ago (I swear I haven't spoken about this with him for weeks so it was pretty funny and on topic tonight. The last time we discussed it was when he said origin was the top rating sports show in Australia a few wks back, to which I said 'actually no it wasn't, Matildas was 1, afl gf 2'. At first I thought he was sending this below to me as a brag, but then he said he sent it to me coz he got his origin info from Vlandy's and when I corrected it, he checked and I was right, v'landy's was making up the origin one. He then thought he better check to see if he was talking shit again here coz he had no reason not to believe him the first time).
Seriously what chance have we got when this clown keeps claiming this, his Sydney media machine pushes it, then the people that report the data refuse to give clear detail to the reader about what it all means. In fact, it's intentionally misleading.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #24
Its been the primary measurement for 20 years - and will continue to be so until Reach is gold certified - which is 12 months away at least.
I want to be abundantly clear here: its been clear for 20 years. This is the only forum amongst the many I participate in where this is an issue. And it has never been an issue anywhere else for 20 years - and only between very few people here.
As such Im not changing anything for you special few.
- Thread starter
- #25
Because oztam don't care, they have got enough to deal with across all entertainment areas and are likely Sydney based.
League unlimited would love the fact the data you are presenting is holding to the perception that rugby league is the most viewed sport in Australia, so you're probably viewed as a hero over there. They would have initially freaked out when they heard averages were no longer the measuring stick, the curtain was pulled back on all the bullshit that's been peddled by their admin year by year.
So naturally anybody that it unfairly advantaged by the way you present the data 'wouldn't have a problem with it', what a surprise that is.
Last edited:
Similar threads
