Talk:Nielsen ratings/Archives/2012

Comments

"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

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

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)

Nielsen's in fiction

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

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

????????????

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")

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen NetRatings

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

Overall network ratings

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"?

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

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)

Percentage greater than one hundred

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'

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

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

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

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

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?

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)

CM Punk

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)