[Eidolon14]

Originally posted by the laziest little sidekick: <STRONG>The show would probably do well on a network like Showtime - still, I'd hate to have to resort to downloading.</STRONG>

Seriously. Our cable provider decided to kill off our HBO and Showtime awhile back, so... feh.

[Chiqa]

Just like TV executives are businesspeople, not morons, the Nielsen figures offer the most accurate depiction possible of what people are watching.

I disagree laziest little sidekick. Just because people are of similar backgrounds doesn't mean they watch the same things. I just found out that there are 5,100 Nielsen boxes supposed to represent 100 million households. That means each household represents about 20,000 households ... which automatically creates a huge margin of error. I, for example, have a different taste in music and t.v. than my sister who's the same gender, race, class and age group.
Also, what about that household with more than one television. The Nielsen box could be downstairs and tuned to ER while the one upstairs is tuned to Without a Trace.

I used to watch a show on BBC America that got cancelled because of low ratings, however, a huge percentage of viewers of that show were expatriates, which means they were not well represented in the Nielsen households.

Imagine a household that supposedly represents say, 20 thousand people. The 20 yr old in this household watched CSI. However, 10,001 20 yr olds in this person's town watched Wonderfalls... they are the majority, but according to Nielsen ratings, 20,000 people watched CSI.

The Neilsens, in my opinion are not accurate at all. And have been challenged, and rightly so, by many in the industry.

However, in this instance, I think this show was poorly marketed. And I think airing the 11th produced episode in the 2nd slot wasn't the best idea. If you think about it, the 4th episode seemed to follow the pilot more than the 2nd did. There was more continuity.


And yes, F*x exec are damn fools for airing it on Thursday against CSI and the Apprentice. How smart. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

One more thing, Tivo ratings, (Tivo is in over 1 million households) are diff from Nielsen's.

[ 04-04-2004: Message edited NaijaChiqa ]

[Mariael311]

I wish HBO or Showtime would pick this show up. I agree they would have so much freedom to do more!

I got this from somewhere else...the poster's name is flamezero81

680.4 in reply to 680.3 According to Nielsen, the ratings aren't that bad.... WONDERFALLS had a solid sampling in its first 2 weeks, averaging 4 million viewers. The series delivers its best performance among teens on Friday night, ranking #1 in its time period. WONDERFALLS is also popular with young men, ranking #2 in its time period among Men 18-34. Source: Nielsen, NTI 03/12-03/19/2004

It frustrates me to no end how FOX simply can ignore thses type of ratings! I wish they'd all go to hell!

[UnsilentMajorty]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the fact is that the Neilsen system is statistically flawed and outdated.

Internet search engines and direct viewer feedback like this message board are FAR better indicators of what people are watching based on hits/queries for certain shows alone.

It was brought up on the Cancellation thread that WF generated 124,000 hits on a particular search engine (maybe averaged across all the major ones), right behind Arrested Development (125,000) and that is in ONE month alone.

What does this prove?

It proves that people were CURIOUS about this show and were looking it up to see what it was about... And probably would have watched it to see what the "hype" was about.

Now, thanks to FOX, they can't watch it.

It's the stupidest logic I've ever heard of.

Consequently, The O.C. has like half a million hits. Again, the point is that the internet, statistically, is slowly becoming a more accurate sample of what REAL people -- not a Nielsen household that represents about 20,000 people -- Are watching or WANT to watch most importantly.

It may not be perfect, but I bet if you found a way to link what those with the internet have "say", you'd have an even better and MORE accurate sample of who is really watching WHAT and what (if you're a network) to really give a chance to in your lineup.

[the laziest little sidekick]

Originally posted by UnsilentMajorty: <STRONG>Internet search engines and direct viewer feedback like this message board are FAR better indicators of what people are watching based on hits/queries for certain shows alone.</STRONG>

That wouldn't work. If that system were used, there'd be too many built-in (and incredibly incorrect) assumptions. You'd be assuming that only the American viewing audience is using search engines to look up shows, that everyone with a TV has Internet access, and that everyone who watches TV looks up every show they watch online. Online fanbases don't transfer into real life. People and shows with miniscule online followings can do incredibly well, while shows with a big following might not.

Face facts - how many people that you know have heard of Wonderfalls? All I hear when I tell people about the show is that they've never heard of it. This comes from people who watch The Simpsons, American Idol, The OC, and other FOX shows - they've just never seen a commercial for WF, and if they have, it obviously didn't leave an impression. The show wasn't promoted, and while the Nielsens may not be entirely accurate, they did reflect the truth: Very few people watched this show.

[Mariael311]

I'd hate to agree with that last part of the previous post but it's true and sad!

It is true about how the net can also be incorrect! I mean, I just wish that it would mean something to those stupid asses at FOX!

[UnsilentMajorty]

I didn't say that the internet was perfect.

All I said was that it is a far more effective tool to a certain extent than the limited Nielsen ratings.

But hey... If you can come up with a better system, I gurantee you will be the next Bill Gates. Oh. Wait a minute. You can't be the next Bill Gates because NO ONE can come up with a system that is better than the Nielsen's, yet everyone agrees it is the most biased and unscientific "sample" in the history of mankind [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I don't know what to do other than have every single TV in America with something like a wireless connection to some massive computer (or computers) in various places that phyiscally tallies every single thing you watch (which would be broken down to a specific person's demographic if there are more than one TV in the household) and then just says, "Well. On Tuesay night, So-and-So got the most averaged viewers. Therefore, it MUST be the one everyone likes".

See my point?

We can point out the flaws in every system, but until someone comes along and or gets off their ass and seriously thinks about how to guage what people are watching... Then I don't know what to do?

[Eidolon14]

Can someone explain how to read a Nielsen's rating? [img]smilies/look.gif[/img]

[Mariael311]

It's crap! i don't know why they just don't put some chip in all TV's that can be used to track what is being watched! They put Vchips in tv so that parents can monitor what their kids are watching! I mean how do they come up with these numbers for like the Superbowl! I mean, how did they know it was the most watched if only a percaentage of households can be used to do the sampling!

Unsilent Majority- I know what you mean! But then again, nothing is perfect...that's a given!

Brian- As far as I know, a certain amount of people have this box that tracks what they watch. This is supposed to be their sampling, which frankly IMO isn't big enough, and they use those numbers to get their percentages! I'll look for something on the net that better clarifies it! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Mariael311]

Try this link out, Brian!

[the laziest little sidekick]

Originally posted by Mariael311: <STRONG>I mean, how did they know it was the most watched if only a percaentage of households can be used to do the sampling!</STRONG>

Mathematically, surveying 1000 people (as long as they're chosen correctly) can give a rough idea of what you'd get if you surveyed the entire country. The more people you survey, the more accurate it gets - around 5000 homes have Nielsen People Meters in them.

(And for anyone who's ever wondered why they've never met a Nielsen person...if they told you they were Nielsen people, they wouldn't be Nielsen people anymore. The company asks them to keep it quiet.)

[Mariael311]

Originally posted by the laziest little sidekick: <STRONG> Mathematically, surveying 1000 people (as long as they're chosen correctly) can give a rough idea of what you'd get if you surveyed the entire country. The more people you survey, the more accurate it gets - around 5000 homes have Nielsen People Meters in them. </STRONG>

Yeah, I totally understood that! I actually stayed awake in Statistics class. But still, I just find it all so damn archaic! I wonder what their percentage in error is!

[welcometomyworld]

Did anyone catch the interview with Tim Minear on Succubus Club? He made a really good point about ratings. Basically, he said the second ep of WF was the most TiVo'd show that night but things like that aren't taken into account by Nielsen.

The ratings numbers they give are seriously skewed because of TiVo. TiVo's a growing thing and for Nielsen to have reliable, accurate data, they need to find a way to take into account shows that are TiVo'd.

It's a shame to see shows like WF suffer just because Nielsen's behind the curve and all the nets think about is money.

[ 04-07-2004: Message edited welcometomyworld ]

[**Carrie**]

i would love to know what kind of ratings "the swan" rerun gets tonight. i'm really hoping it ends up being MUCH less than wf.

[Raja]

The Swan got massive ratings on Wednesday. I fear for humanity.

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/go...s&id=wednesday