Ah, but you are forgetting about the third party candidates. They pulled enough votes to keep the winner from getting OVER 50%
I'm not forgetting them at all. They're the ones who forgot something--they forgot that casting a vote is a serious matter, not an opportunity to make hollow gestures--particularly when there's such a clear and dangerous difference between the two mainstream candidates on offer. A good friend of mine, somebody whose opinion I normally hold in high regard, voted for Nader. She bitterly regrets it now. But she never for one minute thought Nader would win.
The majority of voters whose votes COUNTED for anything voted for Gore. If the people who voted for Third Party Candidates had not voted at all, but rather stayed home and watched television, the election result would have been exactly the same.
Do let me know when we switch to Proportional Representation, won't you?
Marc i appreciate you for starting this site so that we can all discuss ratings. I have been reading your ratings reports at mediaweek since 2004 and I think that you give great rating reports. Other sites only give the fast national ratings in househoulds and it was very annoying trying to understand what that meant. Your ratings have always been excellent and easy to understand. Thank you for the hard work that you put in every day to get the job done.
They are spending many millions. They look at much more than what we see here. And Nielsen numbers are part of the supply and demand negotiation process. For example, if, for some reason, there was a higher demand for availabilities in NCIS than CSI, they would charge more for NCIS than CSI, regardless of these numbers. It gets far more complicated than just looking at demos.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee: A bit arbitrary, no?
If cw and CBS can do business selling demos besides 18-49, why shouldn't they?
Are you proposing some sort of FTC regulation that would prohibit them from doing so?
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye: Bottom line: If older viewers don't count, then they shouldn't count for any Network.
Gee, maybe my post was confusing? I simply wanted to know why so many people hold the number of older viewers that CBS shows get against them - If those same shows also have a large number of young viewers. Don't advertisers just look at the demo viewers?
Posts: 1462 | Location: NY | Registered: 19 September 2006
Since this started with somebody making a rather imperfect analogy between elections and Nielsen results (Nielsen doesn't run elections, it takes POLLS), let me make an equally imperfect analogy between the electoral college and the increasing focus on younger demographic groups. In fact, one citizen's vote can mean more than another's, and one Nielsen viewer's preference can mean more than another's.
There are political reasons for the first injustice (the less populous states of this large nation need to feel there's some kind of levelling influence at work in government, so that candidates don't just write them off), and economic reasons for the second (advertisers are more interested in the people they think are more likely to buy their products after watching their ads), but it amounts to an injustice, all the same.
However, Grey's won both the popular and electoral vote last night, so there'll be no recount. And more people watching CSI repeats is a clear case of voter fraud.
Hey, thank you Brucej. I really appreciate that! I have a brief hiatus coming up effective next Friday through the following Thursday, but TravisYanin will be posting the fast nationals.
quote:
Originally posted by brucej: Marc i appreciate you for starting this site so that we can all discuss ratings. I have been reading your ratings reports at mediaweek since 2004 and I think that you give great rating reports. Other sites only give the fast national ratings in househoulds and it was very annoying trying to understand what that meant. Your ratings have always been excellent and easy to understand. Thank you for the hard work that you put in every day to get the job done.
Originally posted by Hawk-eye: Gee, maybe my post was confusing? I simply wanted to know why so many people hold the number of older viewers that CBS shows get against them - If those same shows also have a large number of young viewers. Don't advertisers just look at the demo viewers?
The 18-49 demo is the 'most important' to the majority of advertisers. So, advertisers will pay more to reach that audience than older folks. Still, it depends on each show, each advertiser, and each product being pitched. If you are selling tampons, you will want to know how many 18-34W you are reaching with Grey's Anatomy. It might be 10 times as many as you would reach with a show like Gilmore Girls. Then, you look at the ad rates. If a 30 second spot during Grey's Anatomy costs twenty times as much as a spot during Gilmore Girls, then the later is the better buy. The number of old folks (especuially men) watching either show doesn't matter at all to you. On the other hand, if you are selling Depends Undergarmets, you don't care nearly as much about the 18-34W. In fact, you care mostly about the old folks. So, if you are selling Depends Undergarments, you aren't willing to pay the extra high price to reach all those extra Grey's Anatomy viewers. Instead, you may want to advertise during 60 Minutes where you can reach your target audience AND not have to pay the premium that goes with reaching the younger viewers as well.
And I watched Scrubs/30 Rock. So in your analogy -- I voted for Nader!
quote:
Originally posted by pisher: Since this started with somebody making a rather imperfect analogy between elections and Nielsen results (Nielsen doesn't run elections, it takes POLLS), let me make an equally imperfect analogy between the electoral college and the increasing focus on younger demographic groups. In fact, one citizen's vote can mean more than another's, and one Nielsen viewer's preference can mean more than another's.
There are political reasons for the first injustice (the less populous states of this large nation need to feel there's some kind of levelling influence at work in government, so that candidates don't just write them off), and economic reasons for the second (advertisers are more interested in the people they think are more likely to buy their products after watching their ads), but it amounts to an injustice, all the same.
However, Grey's won both the popular and electoral vote last night, so there'll be no recount. And more people watching CSI repeats is a clear case of voter fraud.
Posts: 1664 | Location: Great White North | Registered: 10 November 2006
Originally posted by StephNC: Damn - I think that number is even higher than last week!
Many people wanted to see Meredith die. Personally I am one of them, and I got my wish.
It's funny that Smallville increases during it's half hour breakdown, and then it goes downwards from there. I have a question. Does DVR or TiVO effect the ratings or no?
RE: GREY'S ANATOMY and Meredith's death..it was a very good episode, but folks... Meredith is not going to stay dead. Get ready for the defibrillator at the start of next week's episode, after she has a chat with dead Denny, of course! There is no way in hell they'll kill off the main character. No way.
They are spending many millions. They look at much more than what we see here. And Nielsen numbers are part of the supply and demand negotiation process. For example, if, for some reason, there was a higher demand for availabilities in NCIS than CSI, they would charge more for NCIS than CSI, regardless of these numbers. It gets far more complicated than just looking at demos.
Originally posted by PaulC: And I watched Scrubs/30 Rock. So in your analogy -- I voted for Nader!
quote:
Originally posted by pisher: Since this started with somebody making a rather imperfect analogy between elections and Nielsen results (Nielsen doesn't run elections, it takes POLLS), let me make an equally imperfect analogy between the electoral college and the increasing focus on younger demographic groups. In fact, one citizen's vote can mean more than another's, and one Nielsen viewer's preference can mean more than another's.
There are political reasons for the first injustice (the less populous states of this large nation need to feel there's some kind of levelling influence at work in government, so that candidates don't just write them off), and economic reasons for the second (advertisers are more interested in the people they think are more likely to buy their products after watching their ads), but it amounts to an injustice, all the same.
However, Grey's won both the popular and electoral vote last night, so there'll be no recount. And more people watching CSI repeats is a clear case of voter fraud.
Yes poor Marc. He will sue us all for carpal tunnel syndrome.
