Talk:Nielsen ratings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


You kill good shows, because people watch them online[edit]

The ancient decrepit N boxes are fossils, and ignore the online viewers. Some shows are VERY popular but get killed anyhow thanks to these clowns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.234.159 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)



Comments[edit]

"It has been suggested that N (certification) be merged into this article or section." <-- The N Certification is from Nielsen BDS, which is a division of Nielsen Entertainment - not Nielsen Media research.

It's not clear how to find the ratings on calendarlive.com. The external link should be a lot more focused.

I removed the comment that downloading episodes of television shows from the internet was widespread "especially with sci fi programming" because I couldn't for the life of me figure out where they got that notion from.

Agreed. It's a common gripe on SF chatboards of any SF program that was cancelled. I've seen it offered on a Star Trek: Enterprise BBS a few times, but it has never been supported by a flake of evidence. This also goes to the Nielsen Criticism section. --Nephandus 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings vs Other kinds of ratings[edit]

Let's not conflate the Nielsen TV Ratings with ratings that measure other media. If you want to make a general entry on ratings, then that's where radio listership belongs - perhaps with Arbitron. Radio ratings are not called Nielsens and Nielsen does not measure "listenership."--Nephandus 17:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Criticism section[edit]

how many actual households have these meters? how does this tiny amount guarantee billions of dollars in advertising yearly? how do the advertisers know exactly how many people are watching if these socalled meters are only active in 50,000 homes? these ratings are not accurate, yet they determine the billions made yearly on TV.


It's no mystery - why don't you simply contact them or check out the www.nielsenmedia.com faq? They use a standard statistical technique called "sampling". A correctly chosen sample of the population should be able to tell you with reasonable certainty about the viewing trends of the overall population. Now, if you don't believe in sampling, the next time you go to the doctor for a blood test, why don't you say, "I don't believe in sampling - drain all of it - Just take all of my blood?--Nephandus 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

The problem is that sampling is only good if it is truly random something that "Can You Believe TV Ratings?" showed is NOT true of the Nielsen ratings. By "choosing" a sample you are doing what is known in statistics as cooking the data ie creating a biased sample. Another flaw in the sampling that it assume all stations used are available to all viewers--something that has NEVER been true. USAToday had revealed in 2007 that not all of the sample size is used (time shifted programs are thrown out) further distorting the results. A biased sample is like saying, "why not use the blood sample you took last week?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I again deleted some TiVo section, and additional information about the "minority bias" flap that happened in 2004. There is an excellent repository of articles at Everyone Counts that covers this whole "controversy" in detail. --Nephandus 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I restructured the page to combine all criticism topics into a single section, as well as adding some background and new information to that section. BarkingDoc

I deleted some items in there.

In 2004, the Nielsen introduced a new system to measure local ratings in the largest market areas using its People Meters instead of the traditional paper diaries, which was criticized by News Corporation and other cultural advocates as resulting in a bias toward misreporting minority viewing. Many argue that commercial television under-represents minorities, which can lead to a de-facto discrimination in employment against minority actors and writers.

The People Meter system was not in any way new. It is the same system embraced by the same industry for national markets, and it was built to replace the inferior "diary" measurement, which relies on people recording their own viewing. It has been used in Canada by Nielsen Media Research to measure local markets for over a decade - specifically in Toronto & Vancouver before the US local markets were rolled out.

NewsCorp got higher ratings on the less accurate diary system and so wanted to delay the introduction of the newer system, and also needed a scapegoat for its waning audiences. It enlisted the aide of the Glover Park public relations firm to to engineer "crisis" and tie it to racial minorities.

The anti-Nielsen ratings campaign.

Anyone who wants to challenge Nielsen's coverage of ethnic minorities needs to first examine this repository of information about that subject: Everyone Counts

Also, the rise of "time-shifting" through the use of VCRs, Digital Video Recorders (DVR), and downloading episodes from the Internet have also not, critics claim, been sufficiently addressed by the system. Nielsen reached an agreement to provide information on DVR usage to the television industry. TiVo ratings reporting began in January, 2005, with other DVR providers expected to join soon.

Why is Nielsen being criticized here when it is the industry that cannot come to consensus on how the data will be used. That's not Nielsen's fault, and it isn't a criticism of Nielsen, so it needs to go. --Nephandus 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be inaccurate, whenever a show is cancelled, even a good show, you can kinda tell that no one watches it. Proeliator Sancti 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nielsen announced a sweeping plan to revamp its entire methodology to include all types of media viewing in its sample." cute.

I would also allege as a criticism is that their overall sample size is too small. It is something just short of 10,000 "families" from what I read on their faq. Bdelisle 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially as per "Can You Believe TV Ratings?." NOVA / Horizon. PBS. 1992-02-18 those families are not a true random sample in the first place. Also producers know they can manipulate the ratings of these households to keep shows they like and kill shows they don't (NBC's Star Trek or CBS' Flash)--BruceGrubb 04:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Current ratings[edit]

Will this section ever be updated again? I notice that the the user who added it hasn't been here in about a month. I think it would be fine (if not downright useful) to keep this data or watch trends, etc. At least the Top 20 shows anyways. RADICALBENDER 20:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • IMO, this whole section should be deleted if nobody is going to maintain it. I'm not saying the data has no value, but to have "latest ratings" from January in September is pretty ridiculous. If anyone disagrees or is going to maintain this, add it back and pick up from where the previous user left off.--Isotope23 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a while. I have professional experience working with Nielsen, and will put it on my watchlist to correct the innaccuracies from time to time. I've done an initial sweep of it. --Nephandus 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nephandus, can you sy "conflict of interest?"--68.85.27.47 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an edit page about Nielsen Media Research. I have knowledge about Nielsen Media Research gleaned from my professional experience working within the media industry. This has been a dead entry for a long time. I've merely corrected false information in accordance with wiki guidelines. It certainly doesn't read like an ad for Nielsen. If something is written on this page that is incorrect, then you should either correct it, or discuss it (as I have done). If you object to the idea of an informed person writing or editing on a subject that is relevant to his sphere of interests, and who can support his edits, then just what IS acceptable? --Nephandus 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


At the bottom it reads "Complete weekly broadcast ratings can be found at Los Angeles Times' calendarlive.com." However, there's no real information there. Is it possible to actually find complete weekly broadcast ratings on the internet for free? If so, post it. I'm not just looking for the top 20 shows, I'm looking for it all.

Yes, there is a source on the internet for free broadcast and cable programming ratings - www.zap2it.com. The site also lists previous days prime ratings for the broadcast nets. Nephandus - I work with Nielsen data daily, so far what you have here is pretty good and I didn't find anything that would need to be corrected. There is one section that could be added and that is about competition or lack there of. There is couple start ups and co-ops that might worth mentioning. I have some info that I could add. Let me know if it should be.

Nielsen's in fiction[edit]

I remember some show from the 80's (A-Team, Simon and Simon, or heaven knows what) where the plot was a TV monitoring device was hooked up to a set. The device had a little number on it which showed the station it was reporting back, and the whole gist of the episode was someone faking the ratings as they watched one channel and the device reported another (oh yeah...we're talking real action/drama here :)

More of a brain fart than anything.

Update: It was Whiz Kids episode 11 - Watch Out! - that had this happen. I'm 3 episodes away from getting to it. Sabalon 18:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics[edit]

I've answered a question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk regarding the codes used for demographics (e.g. P2+, A18-49, etc.), but I really know nothing about what the codes stand for so was kind of guessing! These codes are bandied about so often but it's very difficult to find an explanation of what they stand for ("Adults aged between 18 and 49). Could someone more knowledgable than me about demographics and TV ratings please include an explanation in the article? Thanks, --Canley 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am considering an edit, but a general guide: P=Persons, A=Adults, M=Men (or males) W=Women (sometimes F=Female). Also T=Teens and C=Children. Nielsen measures the viewing of persons aged 2 years plus (P2+). In common usage, P2-11 are considered children, P12-17 are considered teens, and P18+ are adults. So, to your point, A18-49 or P18-49 are persons aged between 18 and 49, inclusive. Gbe nyc 20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Main demos are: HH - Household or everyone in the house P - People - also known as (A)dults M - Males F - Female - (W)omen is also used but it is not the standard WW - Working Women LOH -Lady of the house M and F audience should add up to P audience

????????????[edit]

1.0 rating equals how much-

0.1 rating equals how much-

T00C00L 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1.0 =1,102,000 so .1 = 110,200

Are we talking national which is based on US Universe or Network rating which is based on Network Universe. Current US Universe is 111,400,000, this number changes every September.

Factual accuracy ("determine" vs "estimate")[edit]

There are a bunch of places in this article where the words "determine" and "measure" are used, where "estimate" would be more accurate. Wonderstruck 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

People meter?[edit]

Should people meter be capitalized or not? At some places in the article, it is; at others, it isn't. If it is capitalized, is it a registered trademark?

ABC Rankings[edit]

Does anyone know why are ABC ratings according to Nielsen so different than any other shown on the web? You can find them here - http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=010307_05.

I don't see a difference at all, following links are for week ending 1/14/07. ABC shows the list in viewrs order not rating, so that would make a difference: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=011707_08 http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Cweekly2,00.html

Look now (week ending January 28th):
http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=013007_05
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Cweekly,00.html
Huge difference! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.135.63 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Commercial Ratings[edit]

Does anyone know whether Nielsen still measures the show's ratings - I mean the tv series itself around the commercial break - for another service? Does it really only measure the 7/14 minutes of commercial breaks per 30/60 minute segment?--84.58.156.208 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Set Meters[edit]

More info on these would be nice. Which 'selected homes' are used? How are they chosen? Is it voluntary? I mean, we're all being watching anyway, but it would be nice to know how it works for sure ;) 24.60.66.216 06:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rating v. Share[edit]

Rating is the % of total TV households in US that what... watch any part of a show? watch a whole show? The example given indicates "were tuned in at any given moment" - meaning that if two households each watch half of a program, it will figure in to be one household watching at any given moment? Someone please elaborate. What is considered a household tuning in? If two TVs in the same house watch two different shows, is that considered a household viewing for both programs? The article needs to be more explainatory.

How does the "household" system factor in different televisions watching different programs (the "measuring" section indicates that all TVs in the home are measured with set-top measuring systems.) I think this information should be included. TheHYPO (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify this based on information found here: [1] While it would be great to get a more reliable source, the author of the page is published on the subject and the referenced page was the most clearly articulated explanation I could find. Hartct (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, could there be some clarity added for how the ratings are tabulated? this blog which purports to list ratings notes for Journeyman: Journeyman (3.8/6 HH rating/share, 5.75M viewers, 2.3/6 A18-49 rating/share). on Nov 20 for the Nov 19 episode. However, on Nov 27 for the Nov 26 episode, they list the following comparison: Week-to-week numbers: Households - 3.7/6 to 3.8/6 Viewers - 5.61M to 6.18M Adults 18-49 - 2.2/6 to 2.5/6

Can someone clarify why the ratings change from report to report on the same sites? TheHYPO (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?[edit]

From the (article's) first paragraph "Nielsen operates in over 100 countries and was founded in 1923."

From the second paragraph "The system has been updated and modified extensively since it was developed in the early 1940s by Arthur Nielsen."

Do the above sentences not contradict with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnuus (talkcontribs) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen NetRatings[edit]

Nielsen NetRatings redirects here, but they are not described in the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall network ratings[edit]

Does anyone have any info on who won in the overall season network ratings? Many times, a network says that they're the #1 network, so I'm interested in who's been #1 through the years. Pja1981 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why "Ratings"?[edit]

Is there some reason why "Ratings" is capitalized in the name of this article? Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect percentage in Criticism section[edit]

I fixed the percentage calculation in the Criticism section. It was so wrong that it almost looked like a deliberate attempt to make Nielsen look bad:

  • The precision was way too high (fifteen significant digits!)
  • The number of households was being divided with the total number of people in the US (I used the average number of people per household from the second reference to estimate the total number of households)
  • The resulting number was presented as a percentage, without actually being converted into one by multiplying it with 100

The actual percentage turns out to be 258 times higher than what was there before.Captain Chaos (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

American Idol's long tenure...[edit]

If American Idol really the #1 show for almost the last few seasons? In the Las Vegas area I'm not aware of anybody who watches it, as nobody talks about it or anything. So I'm wondering if the Nielsen ratings are flawed and can be manipulated.

Case in point: Married with Children. EVERYBODY watched this show, as the next day, we all talked about Al Bundy and his exploits. Yet, the weekly Nielsen ratings would state that Murder She Wrote had higher ratings for Sunday night. I strongly doubt that and disagree with that. Who are these viewers of Murder She Wrote? Why didn't we talk about Jessica Fletcher over Al Bundy the next day?

Also, with many, many households using digital boxes of some kind to get TV into their houses, can't Nielsen ratings use actual ratings based on the feedback of data from these boxes to see what people are really watching? It's like when Billboard switched to digital rankings in 1990 based on the actual UPC/SKU scans. It's amazing, that we based on actual UPC/SKU scans, that what is considered "popular" may be, in actuality, unpopular and unheard of.

Sierraoffline444 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless you know everyone in Las Vegas and conducted a poll on their television watching habits that shows no one there watched American Idol, I think it's safe to say that at least one Las Vegas residence probably does watch American Idol - you just don't know them or you do and they didn't share that information with you. As for Married...with Children, perhaps you and all your friends watched it but I know plenty of people who can't stand the show and never watched it (yours truly included). I really don't know why you and your friends didn't talk about Jessica Fletcher. Maybe it's because you didn't watch the show? Seems kinda pointless to discuss a show and character that you didn't watch. It seems like you're trying to say that the Nielsen Ratings are bogus just because you don't find the shows that get (or got) high ratings (according to them) interesting. That's like saying the Beatles didn't sell a million+ albums because you don't own one of them or know anyone who does. There are people outside of your sphere who are interested in things you aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.173.203 (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Percentage greater than one hundred[edit]

The Shock Theater entry links to a 1957 Billboard [[2]] magazine quoting ratings of "1,125%". Is that possible? If share doesn't reflect a total possible viewing figure but some strange branch of maths should this entry reflect it? MartinSFSA (talk)

That's the percentage that the show's ratings went up, not the actual rating itself. Also, the company which reported those particular ratings was Trendex, not Nielsen, so it wouldn't go here anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Firs; that's still saying their share went from, say, .08 to 100 overnight. MartinSFSA (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly odd. But it wouldn't go here on the Nielsen page; there's no page for Trendex, either. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
How do you know Billboard used Trendex? If you've got a source is that something we should add to the right page, or start one?MartinSFSA (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I know Billboard used Trendex because the article you linked to above explicitly states so: "In New York, a special Trendex made on October 3 and 4 showed that WABC-TV, previously an also-ran in the late-night film showings, built itself a new audience." Billboard also reported Hooper ratings, Nielsen, Arbitron, and other ratings services. This article mentions the fact that other ratings systems have been used in the past, specifically mentioning Hooper. I started an article for C. E. Hooper a few years ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

'Viewers'[edit]

This article clearly defines 'Ratings' 'Shares' and the difference between the two. But, the subchapter heading also mentions 'Viewers', then does not -- as I read it -- clearly define how Nielsen defines viewers. I don't think 'Households' and 'Viewers' are synonymous; therefore, logic would suggest that 'Viewership' of programs is taken from the number of persons who log onto the Peoplemeters in the 56 Overnight Households. Or, if that's not it, then Nielsen must figure and average number of people per household. Can you clarify the term 'Viewers', and how that number is arrived at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.234.14 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Not that it matters[edit]

But from a statistical viewpoint, their system is totally useless for anything more than, say, +-5 perc. point estimate (that is, e.g. "the last episode of Found had a rating of 7%, confidently between 2% and 12%"). I wouldn't wanna see the actual confidence interval on Nielsen ratings. It is absurd that differences like 0,5 percentage point decide renewal and cancellation. I mean, I find it quite unbelieveable, given the sums of money the networks have staked on their various productions, they are putting so much stock into something as grossly inaccurate as Nielsen polls. A leverage of 4600 households estimated by a single one viewing meter? Come on!

But as I said, it is a pointless comment. How private networks choose to spend their money is nobody else's business. I just wonder where the art consideration has gone to that used to have a place on television... 89.102.111.79 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User:Misacek01 currently logged out

89-90 top show[edit]

According to [3] and [4] Roseanne was the top rated show of the 89-90 tv season. Is there any source that says otherwise? 85.65.69.166 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the source that you added just a few hours ago states that The Cosby Show was the #1 show. And the source currently listed in the article, McNeil, Alex (1996). Total Television, 4th ed. New York: Penguin. pp. 1143–1161. ISBN 0-14-024916-8, states that it was a tie between the two shows. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Odd... at any case while i couldn't find any text in Total Television, 4th ed. that there was a tie, in the 3rd ed from 1991 it is stated that Roseanne topped The Cosby Show in the 89-90 tv season - [5]. I think it should be changed. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Actually, just now, I couldn't find it in Total Television, either, but it is listed as a tie in Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh (1997), The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present, page 1692. They are both listed in the #1 spot, with a 23.1 rating. I'll switch out the source (to Brooks and Marsh) tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2003/2004 top show[edit]

Just a note that putting American Idol as the top show for the 2003/2004 is not quite correct. While American Idol Tuesday show was the top show, overall (i.e. Tuesday + Wednesday) the show was ranked 2nd after CSI. 2004/2005 was the first season it became the top show overall, up to and including 2011. Hzh (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings are bogus due to age descrimination[edit]

Nielsen is not interested in the input of those over a certain age in regards to movies. The motion picture industry would be wise to use another company to obtain ratings. My husband and I go to the movies every week and most weeks we go twice. Nielsen employees are not interested in our input. They flat out ask you how old your youngest child is to confirm their suspicions that you are older. If you are over a certain age your opinion is of no interest to the company. How many of us out there are over 50 and go to movies?? My daughter is 25 and she has no interest in going to the movies. I think those of us over 50 should boycott the movie industry due to age discrimination by Nielsen since the movie industry keeps them in business. I think I will attempt to get this going through facebook.75.179.133.247 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is any RS documentation this it would be valuable for the article but with out one the information is useless--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Online vs. Television?[edit]

How does Nielson or any other ratings agency handle the shift of viewers to viewing things on demand using Tivo or Hulu or another delivery mechanism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.72.91 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

left took over your television?[edit]

That stuff about networks focusing on the 18-49 demographic just so that they can play liberal content sounds pretty dang wing-nutty. I moved it to criticism section, but I'm skeptical that it should be in the article at all. #1 It sounded a lot like someone plugging their book. #2 Looking at the sources, it sounds to me like the book is political entertainment more than non-fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.186.29 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. The book is based on taped interviews with top television executives and other influential people in the business. Not sure what your claims are based on. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that for a claim that there is a conspiracy to bias content using the ratings system, we should either have a reference to the interviews themselves or a corroborating source.(Preferably a source that is attempting to be impartial.) My claims are based on a priori skepticism. I can't rebut the claims if the only supporting evidence is interviews of a fellow claiming that he has tapes of interviews. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no claim of a conspiracy but simply that people naturally prefer to believe that the most important audience have similar views to themselves so that they then can make content with views similar to their own views. Also, Wikipedia does not aim to be the final judge of "The Truth" of statements but uses other criteria such as notability which this source passes since it has been mentioned in independent news media. Finally, the author would surely have been sued if he had not had strong supporting evidence for the claims he makes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The absence of a lawsuit strikes me as a particularly bad criterion for a reliable source. I agree that we do not need to judge "The Truth." If this viewpoint is neutral and well sourced, I'm not opposed to including it. But I'm not convinced that it is either neutral or well sourced. Both the citations are to publications which have a political agenda, both are interviewing the same person, the person quoted makes his claim based upon source material that is not publicly available. This strikes me as a WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:NPOV problem. Look at the wikipedia article on the book that is the ostensible source:

Vin Di Bona stood by the statements quoted from his interview but added that the material "was obtained in a duplicitous manner" accusing Shapiro of misrepresenting the nature of his book prior to interview. Marta Kauffman said that "the idea that we are pushing an agenda is nonsense" adding that "the dangerous thing about the book is it implies we don't want a dialogue." Another of the interviewees, George Schlatter, rejected suggestions that Hollywood is conspiring to exclude the conservative perspective and accused the right wing of being "guilty of everything they accuse the left wing of". Portions of some of the interviews which were released onto the internet to promote the book, particularly the Di Bona interview, caused the director and producer Lionel Chetwynd to resign from the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that claims based on such a disputed source should be presented with some balance, if they must be presented.128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I found a source for the popularity of the 18-49 demographic that IMO is more reliable and less biased. http://learcenter.org/pdf/Gabler18to49.pdf The author discusses a number of different theories, including competition from less competitive networks(Fox, WB, CW), the positive associations with a having a youth image, probability of brand conversion for a younger demographic, and less television watched overall by the demographic. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not only allow supposedly "neutral" sources but allows sources representing different views as long all sides are represented fairly. Your source corroborates Shapiro's claims regarding there being an absence of empirical evidence for the 18-49 group being particularly important as well as ABC starting this unfounded focus in order to get advertising revenue. I think we should add your source as giving alternative interpretations but it is no reason to exclude Shapiro's notable view. Also, his main alternative interpretation is that the executives focus on youth since they "fancy themselves as young and in the vanguard". Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The content violates undue. A view expressed in a single op-ed is not sufficient to justify inclusion. Removing. aprock (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The view is expressed primarily in the book which has been cited by many independent news sources so it is reliable. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Being cited does not make a source reliable, nor does it give it due weight. You need to come to a better understanding of policy. Given that you don't seem to grasp policy at all, engaging with you further here is not likely to be productive. Please return when you can actually cite relevant policy with understanding. aprock (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Incivility is not constructive. Both Shapiro and the book fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for presenting an opinion regarding this topic. Also note that IP above has presented a source that corroborates many of Shapiro's arguments although the interpretation is different. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we add a summary of Gabler's detailed analysis of the overemphasis of the young market and also his interpretations of causes. Then we also add Shapiro's different interpretations in order to achieve NPOV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If we are to avoid an issue with undue weight we would need at least one other source adhering to Shapiro's viewpoint. From the NPOV article:

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

IMO, a viewpoint held by one person is an extremely small minority. The criticism that 18-49 is over valued by TV networks, seems to be broader based. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Benjamin Shapiro is a "prominent adherent". There are many positive reviews of his book so it is not "one person". Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You're going to need to cite policy instead of arguing from your own personal viewpoint. aprock (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I just did. Benjamin Shapiro is a "prominent adherent" as per WP:NPOV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Using words that do not appear in an unnamed policy is precisely not citing policy. Adherent != adherents. Likewise calling someone a "prominent adherent", when they are not primarily known for espousing that view is quite the opposite of prominence. aprock (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It was obvious which policy I referred to since it was mentioned in the previous post. I never claimed that Benjamin Shapiro was multiple persons but he is one prominent person. I will look around for more. Obviously "prominent" refers to notability which Shapiro has. The claim that only persons "primarily known for espousing that view" should be allowed as sources for a view is of course incorrect. It is like arguing that only persons "primarily" known for their views regarding, say, cold fusion, should be allowed as sources on cold fusion (most likely only pro-cold fusion advocates) and not physicists famous for other things. Since we have multiple sources for that the 18-49 market is given too much weight I take it that there is no opposition to adding this? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Prominent + adherent != prominent adherent. One guy is not a minority view. In the language of WP:NPOV, one guy is an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, and not worthy of inclusion. aprock (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, I think that the recent edits are an improvement. I'm ready to call this issue closed, if you are. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

CM Punk[edit]

That image and caption should be removed. It's factually inaccurate and seems to be some sort of vandalism. TheGary (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen vs advertising industry[edit]

The article includes this quote: "Neal Gabler at the Norman Lear Center as well as Benjamin Shapiro, author of Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, have argued that the empirical evidence shows that for advertisers the 18-49 or 18-34 viewers are not more important, and may even be less important, than older viewers".

This seems tangentally related to Nielsen, who publish ratings for a variety of demographics. Instead, this is a criticism of television advertising industry, and shouldn't be included in the article. -109.158.75.28 (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs more and newer citations[edit]

This article needs more references. It also makes some assertions that depend upon references that are too old for an television industry that has undergone significant changes in the past five years. I used inline templates to mark some of the places this applies; I could have marked quote a few more... 72.244.200.210 (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Demographics" section discusses how the estimated demographics are used, but not what they are.

I have been searching for a list, or better yet a scannable graph of all the more important categories that Nielsen rates, preferably with a date of implementation for each category.

I am most interested in the basic sex and age breakdowns, but also ethnicity and gender preference could be helpful, as well as the out of home breakdowns.

Could someone do this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.194.50 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper noun/capitalization question[edit]

Technically since "Nielsen Ratings" is the name of a business shouldn't this be capitalized. It's not like dog or puppy. It's the actual specific title of a corporation. I think "Nielsen Ratings" is a proper noun that needs to be capitalized. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)