That's interesting that they find it acceptable. I suppose it depends on how much tv/sports one watches--I (well, my family, really) watch way too much, I'm sure. Though the legit streams (MLSLive, MLB.tv) are pretty damn good. I'd guess a decent proxy wouldn't give those much trouble.
Matter of proportion. If one box equals 2 k locally and 3 k nationally - then they are saying they have an average of one box on.
I get that. My point is in that scenario the margin of error has to be massive. If your report depends on 1 box somewhere being on or off you're not going to be pulling very reliable data at that low level of ratings. (And IIRC the Neilsen national system even has a lower threshold where they admit that their margin of error is big enough that the numbers are meaningless)
Listen, my belief is the rating system has a margin of error so big as to make it statistically irrelevant in any sense of mathematics. So you may be asking the wrong guy. You have major metro areas of several million with only a few hundred boxes. One or two people make a huge difference, particularly in the reported share. This is why I continually get on my high horse to remind people that even the industry doesn't pay that close attention to the numbers we see, but rather look to the demographic info, commercial ratings and the relative ranking (as well as trends). Sports in particular are known to be very under reported due to group viewing so industry looks at that relative rank and trending.
And that's why the industry has for so long accepted Nielsen as the currency. Nielsen can/does provide demographic data, and no other company has a system in place to try to produce/project demographic data nationally (or even locally) for the very fragmented US television audience. Tivo/set-top box data is going to operationally face a lot of challenges that Nielsen's meters do not have (or do not have to such an extent). Specifically, Tivo and the cable/satellite providers don't know the demographic profiles of their audience/users, in the way that Nielsen knows/surveys their sample of homes/viewers. The Nielsen sample of homes is very limited, but it is "the best" option out there, specifically if demographic data is key to the business -- and it is.
Yep. It is interesting though because the functionality of the people meters from viewer number to demo can actually be built into the modern set top box. I am actually surprised Nielson has not gone this route via partnerships with Cisco and Motorola as opposed to their own hardware investment.
There's definitely limits to what you can watch, but we're at the point that really only NFL and NCAA Football require a traditional TV setup. I've got one friend who pays $25 a year for a very good IP masking program and then pays for every online sports offering he wants. That allows viewing all local teams, and any others, with all the games available on demand for less than cable/etc. would cost. Add in Hulu for many TV series and there's little that can't be had for a pretty significant savings from the crazy prices the traditional setups are charging. I'll be going that route, without the IP program, when I move to Honolulu this Fall.
You also need cable it if you want to (legally) watch niche sports like cycling and one off events like the Olympics.
Part of the problem is this: Nielsen wants to measure who is watching, not just how many TVs are tuned to a certain program. As this is their metric, measurement requires a bit of cooperation on the part of the viewer. I've seen one of their people meters. The box required the viewer to "log in" when he turned on his TV. There were buttons for each member of his family, and he even had to log me in through a manual process. The box even required regular confirmation -- at one point, during the show we were watching, lights started flashing on the box, requiring a button to be pressed to confirm that yes, people were still in front of the TV watching. Any attempt to build meaningful rating measurement into set-top boxes would require the implementation of this interaction. It's unrealistic to expect the average viewer to participate, unless some significant reward was offered. ------RM
Of course. But the level of interaction exists in either scenario...the set top box would simply allow them a more statistically valid reach. Furthermore they could derive ratings for a broad audience passively and have a subset on the interactive program for demo data. The real issue with the current system is its reach. Followed by challenges with logging data on group watching.
Sorta kinda. That is still up in the air as to whether you need cable or the right ISP. I am interested to so how that goes.
ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU ratings (April 15-21, 2013) http://sonofthebronx.blogspot.com/2...15.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter NBC Sports Network, (April 15-21, 2013) http://sonofthebronx.blogspot.com/2...26.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
As I mentioned before, there is an old ALF episode where he hacks into the TV ratings company database and then calls 2,000 people in the US and encourages them to watch "Polka Jamboree" to save it from being cancelled and it shoots the very top of the TV ratings charts in one week. I suspect they did that episode to poke fun at the ratings system and its inherent flaws. I also see from time-to-time certain local ratings of NHL and MLS teams that imply 80% of the potential audience went to the game and only 3,000 people stayed home and watched on TV. Which seems a combination of actual low viewership but also a large unadjusted statistical margin for error that strains credibility. But it is what we have to use. I do know that the demos are as important if not more important than the total rating, which is why certain hit shows don't get an advertising rate premium.
So you honestly believe that the average person would happily cooperate with logging on and logging off, logging in guests, and answering the box's demand for confirmation every now and then? The vast majority of people would say "f*** that" and either turn it off or look for a different way to get their TV. The ones that do cooperate would be a self-selected sample and thus not be scientific. Nielsen picks their families very carefully, monitors them, works with them, and compensates them. This is all so they can be confident that the family will do what Nielsen needs -- if they don't, Nielsen can drop them. It's not a system that could be rolled out unconditionally to every cable and satellite viewer. The most you could you get would be a passive count of TVs tuned to a certain channel, but that statistic would be useless, because the content providers want demographic data more than they want raw ratings. ------RM
MLS has never earned the yearly money they get for tv. So maybe tv people already adjust for the ratings. Look at the LA Galaxy they have been terrible on tv. Some years recently pulling a .1 to .2 rating. That is near worthless, demo or not. No one should get 5 million a year or so for that. ESPN2 is in 100 mil homes. NBCSN in 80 million. MLS viewership is terrible. Most NHL games have beyond crap tv audiences. MLS has a very small but passionate core slowly growing. MLS needs drama. Beckham was drama. An MLS wildcard would be an American born Super Star who starts in MLS and by early 20s is a super star scorer. Like the worlds top teams want him and w0uld pay insane money. MLS could keep him. If he would stay. It would be huge for MLS to hold an 23 year old American born top 5 in the world forward.
Not even close. it will happen. When it does, MLS will get a ton of extra attention from the global media. Talk of winning the world cup will start.
But it could be managed (for the demo data) the same way it is now, simply through a new interface - which incidentally could have a host of changes to make it less intrusive. Nielsen doesn't have to lose the ability to work with families that both opt in and that they approve. However, it gives them several advantages over the current system. The ability for the base rating information to finally be loser to accurate. Which has the result of making it more meaningful. It ALSO allows industry to zero in n programming they want more demo data for. In fact Nielsen could offer a host of additional products behind more accurate rating information, which the industry currently all but ignores. It also allows for a larger audience for Nielsen to choose from. I did not imply every home would want to log n viewers and demo data . . . but you will certainly have a better reach than today.
And if this somehow happened, the backlash from the people who don't watch the league to begin with for MLS "holding back" a potential superstar would be stratospheric.
this does not make sense. No one would blame the league since it would be the players choice to remain. All he would have to do is not sign a new contract and he could move anywhere he was wanted. While certainly not a world super star by any means, the league went through this a bit with Landon and most of the chuckle-heads who bitched directed it at Landon and not at the league.
http://www.lagconfidential.com/2013/3/19/4124204/mls-tv-ratings-nbc-sports-rivalry-week Well still no luck with Unimas, but if this article is to be believed, they were good when the season started.
Yeah, we talked about this back in March. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/mls-2013-tv-ratings.1980451/page-14#post-27451699 Not sure why we are having such a hard time getting the Unimas numbers.
An article on local MLS TV markets http://www.businessofsoccer.com/201...as-easy-as-you-might-think/?utm_source=feedly