[TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
55 here. DirecTV with a DVR. Selective about what I record for later viewing and zap past the commercials, as I have an older Replay TV with the quick skip feature. Only watch Dodgers games and Keith Olbermann (returning three weeks from Monday!) live. Haven't found a big 4½ network prime-time series in several years that held my interest for an entire season. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, K.M. Richards richard...@gmail.com wrote: 55 here. DirecTV with a DVR. Selective about what I record for later viewing and zap past the commercials, as I have an older Replay TV with the quick skip feature. Only watch Dodgers games and Keith Olbermann (returning three weeks from Monday!) live. Haven't found a big 4½ network prime-time series in several years that held my interest for an entire season. A friend. 55 years old and a blue collar worker. He has a big screen HDTV with a corresponding cable package, a VCR (I have no idea of he ever plays anything on it, he certainly can't record), a DVD player, and he has never had internet access, not through a computer, nor through a smartphone. He had minor surgery during then winter and during his recuperation he apparently watched Sportscenter all day. He is the traditional passive TV watcher and I don't see him going online at any time. The only circumstance I can think of is if his employer replaces his work cell phone with a smartphone and doesn't limit his data usage. When I get in a discussion with people about media consumption in the digital age, I always keep him in mind. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
Where I think this can become more valuable is to attempt to track what I'd call the Mad Men effect. If you look at just the raw ratings on that show, it's mediocre at best, even amongst cable. But where this starts filling in the pieces is that the conversations and chatter about the show, to be able to say, Yes, the viewership ratings suck, but there's a very high amount of talk about the show. South Park is another example. This is where, as PGage noted, there needs to be an awareness that, yes, the massive conversation about Glee is going to be coming from adolescents. But you at least can start adjusting your buy to factor that in. We have a thread here devoted to Red Eye, with several mentions by people who've never seen it and others who can't sit through a whole act. If Google Groups is a social medium worth tracking, or if this conversation were taking place on Facebook, would this indicate a level of buzz that has nothing to do with viewership? -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
interesting datapoint in this thread.. I am 44. Cable subscriber, a bunch of tivo's and a cable-system DVR. We rarely watch live-tv. But I know they exist. I have a new employee at work. Approx age 25, smart professional. Discussion today on TV went like this where she said. We don't have cable we stream everything or download it when I am somewhere (ie. eg. hotel) and I have to watch commercials it drives me crazy we have all our tv shows stored on a mediatomb server wow. good luck to conventional media in 10 years. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
I'm 42. Have Comcast for internet and that's it. Use XBox for everything else. With the media program I use, I get almost all the channels I need and many comcast doesn't offer. Not great for sports but hasn't been too bad. - Original Message - From: Doug Eastick east...@mcd.on.ca To: tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens interesting datapoint in this thread.. I am 44. Cable subscriber, a bunch of tivo's and a cable-system DVR. We rarely watch live-tv. But I know they exist. I have a new employee at work. Approx age 25, smart professional. Discussion today on TV went like this where she said. We don't have cable we stream everything or download it when I am somewhere (ie. eg. hotel) and I have to watch commercials it drives me crazy we have all our tv shows stored on a mediatomb server wow. good luck to conventional media in 10 years. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
RE: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
Look what Pew sent me today. Updated data! Twitter Update 2011 13% of online adults use Twitter Currently, 13% of online adults use the status update service Twitter, up from 8% in November 2010. More than half of Twitter users access the service via their cell phones. African-American and Latino internet users continue to be significantly more likely than whites to be Twitter users. Read the full article at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2007/twitter-users-cell-phone-2011-demographics -Original Message- From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Casalotti Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:28 PM To: TVorNotTV Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens You are correct that Pew's study said that only 20 million people (8% of Americans 12+) use Twitter -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Melissa P takingupspace...@gmail.comwrote: Look what Pew sent me today. Updated data! (SNIP) African-American and Latino internet users continue to be significantly more likely than whites to be Twitter users. Read the full article at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2007/twitter-users-cell-phone-2011-demographics I find this particularly interesting. And from what can be gathered from the data provided, this is a true ethnic difference - not explained by SES, education or even geography (that is a little stronger statement than justified by the data, but Twitter is not used more by lower SES or educational level or urban dwellers. I don't know enough about twitter culture to form any hypotheses for this - though I do note that in the coverage of his retirement yesterday there were several references to one of the creators (or owners?) of twitter crediting Shaquille Oneal with having a huge impact on the growth of twitter, as he was one of the early celebrity adopters. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
You are correct that Pew's study said that only 20 million people (8% of Americans 12+) use Twitter -- but 92% had heard of it. Twitter is the kind of site where you do not need to register to see what someone says if you have a link to their profile page. But Facebook is the marketing/consumption social network of choice with nearly 700 million worldwide users. A recent study by Edison Research and Arbitron states that 51% of Americans12+ use that . Some more social media data: - 46% of Americans 12+ check their social media sites more than once a day - 88% have Internet access, and 86% of those have broadband access -- essential for video streaming - 55% of Facebook users are aged 25-54; 52% are women - Twitter is the second largest Search Engine in the world (behind Google), ahead of bing and Yahoo! -- combined. Anyway, I agree it's not perfect, but still think this is better than diaries and people meters in measuring popularity and impact as people tend to talk about, and spend time interacting with, things (brands, companies, and TV shows) they like. Ron Casalotti Wayne, NJ On May 31, 11:48 am, Melissa P takingupspace...@gmail.com wrote: Also, Ron said: 56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo According to the Pew Research Center, only 8% of Americans are using Twitter, so while Twitter response might approach usefulness for teenage girls, it's not much of an answer for everyone else. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
I guess the issue that I have is that there is an assumption that people are telling the truth about their age and gender (and income) when they sign up for Facebook, Twitter, etc. while I know that is not the case. I'm typically either just over 18/21 or over 100. Gender switches to suit my mood. Most of my peers do the same as we do not believe that marketing data should be given away for free. In that light, how can people rely on any demographic data that is obtained from online registrations? Ranger On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ron Casalotti roncasalo...@gmail.comwrote: You are correct that Pew's study said that only 20 million people (8% of Americans 12+) use Twitter -- but 92% had heard of it. Twitter is the kind of site where you do not need to register to see what someone says if you have a link to their profile page. But Facebook is the marketing/consumption social network of choice with nearly 700 million worldwide users. A recent study by Edison Research and Arbitron states that 51% of Americans12+ use that . Some more social media data: - 46% of Americans 12+ check their social media sites more than once a day - 88% have Internet access, and 86% of those have broadband access -- essential for video streaming - 55% of Facebook users are aged 25-54; 52% are women - Twitter is the second largest Search Engine in the world (behind Google), ahead of bing and Yahoo! -- combined. Anyway, I agree it's not perfect, but still think this is better than diaries and people meters in measuring popularity and impact as people tend to talk about, and spend time interacting with, things (brands, companies, and TV shows) they like. Ron Casalotti Wayne, NJ On May 31, 11:48 am, Melissa P takingupspace...@gmail.com wrote: Also, Ron said: 56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo According to the Pew Research Center, only 8% of Americans are using Twitter, so while Twitter response might approach usefulness for teenage girls, it's not much of an answer for everyone else. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
Michael: Because people are, in fact, generally honest on these things (not to say there aren't, but you wouldn't be able to build the massive amount of ad revenue places like Facebook can without having a reasonable belief that the data provided is accurate. Where I think this can become more valuable is to attempt to track what I'd call the Mad Men effect. If you look at just the raw ratings on that show, it's mediocre at best, even amongst cable. But where this starts filling in the pieces is that the conversations and chatter about the show, to be able to say, Yes, the viewership ratings suck, but there's a very high amount of talk about the show. South Park is another example. This is where, as PGage noted, there needs to be an awareness that, yes, the massive conversation about Glee is going to be coming from adolescents. But you at least can start adjusting your buy to factor that in. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ricks buzzwamp...@gmail.com wrote: I guess the issue that I have is that there is an assumption that people are telling the truth about their age and gender (and income) when they sign up for Facebook, Twitter, etc. while I know that is not the case. I'm typically either just over 18/21 or over 100. Gender switches to suit my mood. Most of my peers do the same as we do not believe that marketing data should be given away for free. In that light, how can people rely on any demographic data that is obtained from online registrations? Ranger On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ron Casalotti roncasalo...@gmail.com wrote: You are correct that Pew's study said that only 20 million people (8% of Americans 12+) use Twitter -- but 92% had heard of it. Twitter is the kind of site where you do not need to register to see what someone says if you have a link to their profile page. But Facebook is the marketing/consumption social network of choice with nearly 700 million worldwide users. A recent study by Edison Research and Arbitron states that 51% of Americans12+ use that . Some more social media data: - 46% of Americans 12+ check their social media sites more than once a day - 88% have Internet access, and 86% of those have broadband access -- essential for video streaming - 55% of Facebook users are aged 25-54; 52% are women - Twitter is the second largest Search Engine in the world (behind Google), ahead of bing and Yahoo! -- combined. Anyway, I agree it's not perfect, but still think this is better than diaries and people meters in measuring popularity and impact as people tend to talk about, and spend time interacting with, things (brands, companies, and TV shows) they like. Ron Casalotti Wayne, NJ On May 31, 11:48 am, Melissa P takingupspace...@gmail.com wrote: Also, Ron said: 56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo According to the Pew Research Center, only 8% of Americans are using Twitter, so while Twitter response might approach usefulness for teenage girls, it's not much of an answer for everyone else. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
I believe it is light years better than what we currently have. Conclusive analysis of statistical samples was great when it was impossible to register the audience population as a whole, or on a continual basis. Throw in sweeps programming and the true picture gets distorted even further. But had this been the end of the discussion I'd agree that this approach is better -- but not tremendously so. However, we live in an age where video consumption is migrating at ever increasing rates from the home TV screen to the PC in all its glorious forms including house-bound desktops and portable laptops, to the skyrocketing popularity of tablets like the iPad (with literally hundreds of more choices to come) and the equally burgeoning mobile access via smartphones. In fact, for the 1st time in 20 yrs the percentage of television ownership dropped. Blame digital conversion and new devices (http://ow.ly/4MiFj) . As for teenage girls driving social media results? Social media use continues to grow with adults.56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo. There's an old adage in politics that says people vote with their feet.Working in social media for many years I often say that online, people vote with their clicks, deciding where and on what to spend their limited resource of time. It follows that they would do so on things they find of interest, and that interest should be included in determining public sentiment and popularity of any medium -- TV included. And so any broadcast medium measurement that includes, in a significant way, digital viewer ship and just as importantly, digital public sentiment, is better than one that does not. No, it's not perfect, but I think we can agree it's a move in the right direction (and, I'd add, long overdue). Ron Casalotti Wayne, NJ On May 30, 8:33 pm, PGage pga...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Tom Wolper twol...@gmail.com wrote: I'll second what Joe said. This is about cracking open the model and letting the light in. If the execution turns out to be faulty, then fix the execution, just don't drop the project and go back to legacy Nielsens. True - but I am not sure it is true that anything is better than what we currently have. I can imagine systems that would be substantially worse, and one of those might be a system that depends on how much 15 year old girls tweet about their favorite shows. As one of the people quoted in the article notes, we would likely get even fewer innovative, risky or creative programming that we currently have if ad buys become dependent on this kind of measure. My 13 year old son is just devouring Sportsnight with me on Netflix - and last night he noticed that there were only two seasons (we are about 1/3 of the way through season 2). He had the same emotional reaction that most of us had when it unfolded in real time. But had ad buys been based on watercooler talk of high school girls based on a brief summary of the pilot, I doubt we would have had even two episodes of Sportsnight, much less two seasons. Like I said, there are good elements of this approach, and I hope they continue to develop those. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Ron Casalotti roncasalo...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is light years better than what we currently have. Conclusive analysis of statistical samples was great when it was impossible to register the audience population as a whole, or on a continual basis. Throw in sweeps programming and the true picture gets distorted even further. But had this been the end of the discussion I'd agree that this approach is better -- but not tremendously so. However, we live in an age where video consumption is migrating at ever increasing rates from the home TV screen to the PC in all its glorious forms including house-bound desktops and portable laptops, to the skyrocketing popularity of tablets like the iPad (with literally hundreds of more choices to come) and the equally burgeoning mobile access via smartphones. In fact, for the 1st time in 20 yrs the percentage of television ownership dropped. Blame digital conversion and new devices (http://ow.ly/4MiFj) . As for teenage girls driving social media results? Social media use continues to grow with adults.56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo. There's an old adage in politics that says people vote with their feet.Working in social media for many years I often say that online, people vote with their clicks, deciding where and on what to spend their limited resource of time. It follows that they would do so on things they find of interest, and that interest should be included in determining public sentiment and popularity of any medium -- TV included. And so any broadcast medium measurement that includes, in a significant way, digital viewer ship and just as importantly, digital public sentiment, is better than one that does not. No, it's not perfect, but I think we can agree it's a move in the right direction (and, I'd add, long overdue). I think that there is a tipping point in platform conversion and we're not there yet. I see anecdotal chatter about people dropping watching TV sets for online viewing, but nobody I know has told me they have done this and the TV industry doesn't seem to be in the panic that the publishing industry is, and I have no problem finding people who can tell me about dropping newspaper and magazine subscriptions. The drop in TV households seems to be more related to rural families not being to afford digital TV sets or not being able to receive over-the-air stations. I'd like to see a survey/study which asks iPad owners how many of them live in houses with TV sets - I'm guessing the number is 100%. HDTV is like a lot of technical innovations, when the technology is new and expensive lots of people say they have no use for it and when it becomes ubiquitous people who have it say they will never go back. The bandwidth cost for online HD is still expensive so people will be sticking with their TVs for a while. The cited age range 30-54 is meaningful, but I'm thinking outside that range. If we take those two groups, those under 30 and those above 54, they inhabit completely different world of media consumption. I wouldn't want to be Nielsen or any other company who has to gather data about media usage in those two worlds and come up with one set of numbers or one conclusion. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Ron Casalotti roncasalo...@gmail.comwrote: I believe it is light years better than what we currently have. Conclusive analysis of statistical samples was great when it was impossible to register the audience population as a whole, or on a continual basis. Throw in sweeps programming and the true picture gets distorted even further. But had this been the end of the discussion I'd agree that this approach is better -- but not tremendously so. However, we live in an age where video consumption is migrating at ever increasing rates from the home TV screen to the PC in all its glorious forms including house-bound desktops and portable laptops, to the skyrocketing popularity of tablets like the iPad (with literally hundreds of more choices to come) and the equally burgeoning mobile access via smartphones. In fact, for the 1st time in 20 yrs the percentage of television ownership dropped. Blame digital conversion and new devices (http://ow.ly/4MiFj) . (SNIP) And so any broadcast medium measurement that includes, in a significant way, digital viewer ship and just as importantly, digital public sentiment, is better than one that does not. No, it's not perfect, but I think we can agree it's a move in the right direction (and, I'd add, long overdue). Except - the method cited in the article is not measuring digital views of television programs - at least, that is not all it is doing. It is including a measure of how often television programs are mentioned on sites like Twitter and Facebook. These kinds of mentions are at least as easily manipulated as Sweeps Weeks stunts (more so, likely), and of course, are indirect measures of actual viewership. If I am advertising a product on Glee, in the end I want to know how many people are actually watching the program (on whatever platform), not how many people are talking about the program. I don't dispute that online buzz may be an important predictor of how popular a program might become, adn how cool or hip it might be perceived to be (which may have some rub off value on my product being advertised). I also do not dispute that there are serious problems with the sampling methods and viewership records used by Nielsen. I do dispute that notion that any thing would be better than what we currently have, and I also dispute that notion that there is fundamentally a superior method to random sampling. Unless you have a way of actually accessing every viewing device in the country and monitoring what is being watched by the entire population, I don't think there is a more accurate method for estimating viewership of television programs than identifying a random (stratified) sample and then measuring their viewing as accurately as possible. One problem with Nielsen is in their strategy of measuring what programs are being watched on specific television sets, rather than identifying a sample and finding out what programs they are watching, regardless of platform or location. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, PGage pga...@gmail.com wrote: Except - the method cited in the article is not measuring digital views of television programs - at least, that is not all it is doing. It is including a measure of how often television programs are mentioned on sites like Twitter and Facebook. These kinds of mentions are at least as easily manipulated as Sweeps Weeks stunts (more so, likely), and of course, are indirect measures of actual viewership. [snip] Indeed. Even this little electronic outpost has been visited by the occasional marketing troll. Google hits can be manipulated, and so can this. jd -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
RE: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
I'm pretty much in agreement with what you've said below. But keep in mind that the most serious problem affecting survey research right now is the increasing number of cell phone-only households in the United States. I guess it's somewhat of an exaggeration to say that it's wreaking havoc on sampling, but it probably actually is. Also, Ron said: 56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo According to the Pew Research Center, only 8% of Americans are using Twitter, so while Twitter response might approach usefulness for teenage girls, it's not much of an answer for everyone else. It's nice to have extra information about TV viewing habits, but at this point in time we really don't know how reliable it is. And, it may take years for us to know the answer to that question. Although Nielsen numbers are far from perfect - and getting less perfect every day -- they're still the best we've got. Melissa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtB4UDMEkpUfeature=related Curious about the email address? Listen to the most beautiful song ever sung. From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PGage Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:05 AM To: tvornottv@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens Except - the method cited in the article is not measuring digital views of television programs - at least, that is not all it is doing. It is including a measure of how often television programs are mentioned on sites like Twitter and Facebook. These kinds of mentions are at least as easily manipulated as Sweeps Weeks stunts (more so, likely), and of course, are indirect measures of actual viewership. If I am advertising a product on Glee, in the end I want to know how many people are actually watching the program (on whatever platform), not how many people are talking about the program. I don't dispute that online buzz may be an important predictor of how popular a program might become, adn how cool or hip it might be perceived to be (which may have some rub off value on my product being advertised). I also do not dispute that there are serious problems with the sampling methods and viewership records used by Nielsen. I do dispute that notion that any thing would be better than what we currently have, and I also dispute that notion that there is fundamentally a superior method to random sampling. Unless you have a way of actually accessing every viewing device in the country and monitoring what is being watched by the entire population, I don't think there is a more accurate method for estimating viewership of television programs than identifying a random (stratified) sample and then measuring their viewing as accurately as possible. One problem with Nielsen is in their strategy of measuring what programs are being watched on specific television sets, rather than identifying a sample and finding out what programs they are watching, regardless of platform or location. -- On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Ron Casalotti roncasalo...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is light years better than what we currently have. Conclusive analysis of statistical samples was great when it was impossible to register the audience population as a whole, or on a continual basis. Throw in sweeps programming and the true picture gets distorted even further. But had this been the end of the discussion I'd agree that this approach is better -- but not tremendously so. However, we live in an age where video consumption is migrating at ever increasing rates from the home TV screen to the PC in all its glorious forms including house-bound desktops and portable laptops, to the skyrocketing popularity of tablets like the iPad (with literally hundreds of more choices to come) and the equally burgeoning mobile access via smartphones. In fact, for the 1st time in 20 yrs the percentage of television ownership dropped. Blame digital conversion and new devices (http://ow.ly/4MiFj) . (SNIP) And so any broadcast medium measurement that includes, in a significant way, digital viewer ship and just as importantly, digital public sentiment, is better than one that does not. No, it's not perfect, but I think we can agree it's a move in the right direction (and, I'd add, long overdue). TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
To me, what seems clear is that a single number - from Nielsen, Optimedia, or whoever - is probably not enough. While some kind of new methodology derived by an ad agency is interesting in its own right, the reality is that the ad sales that are being negotiated right now will be based around Nielsen's numbers. But if I was an Optimedia client, I'd be looking at their numbers depending on what it was I was trying to achieve. Certainly, just because I mention Glee or South Park on Twitter, does not really determine whether or not I saw the PG ad in the middle. But it might suggest that PG is right to be advertising in a show perceived as cool amongst a certain audience (especially if that audience is 30-56!). PG is probably the wrong advertiser to think about. But I'd imagine that Nike or Apple might very well be looking at shows that rate highly on that index. Over the weekend, Europe had the closest event we have to an annual Superbowl in the Champions' League Final between Barcelona and Manchester United. There was plenty of social media activity during the match, and that includes comments during the commercial breaks (it being footb... soccer, there are relatively few breaks). And that included comments about the ads. Note that we're nowhere near the level the Superbowl has reached with this fixture. Aside from anything, Europe doesn't have a single network serving it (well there is Eurosport, but that doesn't get big ticket sports fixtures as a rule), so an advertiser has to launch their new creative across dozens of networks. Adam On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Melissa P takingupspace...@gmail.comwrote: I’m pretty much in agreement with what you’ve said below. But keep in mind that the most serious problem affecting survey research right now is the increasing number of cell phone-only households in the United States. I guess it’s somewhat of an exaggeration to say that it’s wreaking havoc on sampling, but it probably actually is. Also, Ron said: “56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo” According to the Pew Research Center, only 8% of Americans are using Twitter, so while Twitter response might approach usefulness for teenage girls, it’s not much of an answer for everyone else. It’s nice to have extra information about TV viewing habits, but at this point in time we really don’t know how reliable it is. And, it may take years for us to know the answer to that question. Although Nielsen numbers are far from perfect – and getting less perfect every day -- they’re still the best we’ve got. Melissa Curious about the email address? Listen to the most beautiful song ever sung. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtB4UDMEkpUfeature=related *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *PGage *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:05 AM *To:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens Except - the method cited in the article is not measuring digital views of television programs - at least, that is not all it is doing. It is including a measure of how often television programs are mentioned on sites like Twitter and Facebook. These kinds of mentions are at least as easily manipulated as Sweeps Weeks stunts (more so, likely), and of course, are indirect measures of actual viewership. If I am advertising a product on Glee, in the end I want to know how many people are actually watching the program (on whatever platform), not how many people are talking about the program. I don't dispute that online buzz may be an important predictor of how popular a program might become, adn how cool or hip it might be perceived to be (which may have some rub off value on my product being advertised). I also do not dispute that there are serious problems with the sampling methods and viewership records used by Nielsen. I do dispute that notion that any thing would be better than what we currently have, and I also dispute that notion that there is fundamentally a superior method to random sampling. Unless you have a way of actually accessing every viewing device in the country and monitoring what is being watched by the entire population, I don't think there is a more accurate method for estimating viewership of television programs than identifying a random (stratified) sample and then measuring their viewing as accurately as possible. One problem with Nielsen is in their strategy of measuring what programs are being watched on specific television sets, rather than identifying a sample and finding out what programs they are watching, regardless of platform or location. -- On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Ron Casalotti roncasalo...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is light years better than what we currently have. Conclusive analysis of statistical samples was great when it was impossible to register
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Networks Start To Look Beyond The Nielsens
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Melissa P takingupspace...@gmail.comwrote: I’m pretty much in agreement with what you’ve said below. But keep in mind that the most serious problem affecting survey research right now is the increasing number of cell phone-only households in the United States. I guess it’s somewhat of an exaggeration to say that it’s wreaking havoc on sampling, but it probably actually is. Also, Ron said: “56% of Twitter users, for example, are in the 30-54 year old target demo” According to the Pew Research Center, only 8% of Americans are using Twitter, so while Twitter response might approach usefulness for teenage girls, it’s not much of an answer for everyone else. It’s nice to have extra information about TV viewing habits, but at this point in time we really don’t know how reliable it is. And, it may take years for us to know the answer to that question. Although Nielsen numbers are far from perfect – and getting less perfect every day -- they’re still the best we’ve got. The Cell phone problem had thrown a huge money wrench into typical sampling procedures - even the years between the last presidential election cycle and the next will likely see a huge change on this characteristic alone. This is likley to be even more of a problem for those particularly interested in understanding young adults. At least with political polling there is an actual criterion score that can be used to correct and adjust sampling models - I don't know how this can really be done for television viewing (how will we ever know how many people really watch a particular program on a given night? Maybe every 4 years we could have 2 weeks when the only way to access any program on any platform would be to log-in and complete some basic demographics, and this could be used as a baseline to adjust sampling methods. I don't fully understand what Nielsen does - if it were me I would try to get demographically accurate samples of the US population, then get as rich a record of total viewing behavior as possible from each individual in the sample (e.g. tv sets, computers, bars, college dorms, airplanes, etc). A method that relies just on monitoring what programs are tuned on specific household television sets seems doomed to being wildly inaccurate. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
