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 P&G ad in the middle. But it might suggest that P&G is right to be advertising in a show perceived as cool amongst a certain audience (especially if that audience is 30-56!). P&G 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.com>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 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=CtB4UDMEkpU&feature=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 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-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
