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). > 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
