On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, K.M. Richards 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 week
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-t
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Melissa P wrote:
> 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-u
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
Doug Eastick"
To:
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 exi
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.
"
> 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 s
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 val
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
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/consumptio
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Melissa P wrote:
> 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 somewh
ooglegroups.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
tv@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
t
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, PGage 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 Faceboo
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Ron Casalotti 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" progr
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Ron Casalotti 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" progr
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 h
17 matches
Mail list logo
