Could a field for Nielsen viewer figures?
The issue you'd have here is that Nielsen is only used in the USA. I'd have no problem with that been added, but in other countries (the U.K. at least) most of this information is actually copyrighted and you aren't allowed to display the information in a database, unless your users pay to see the information, which would also be very costly for the admins of the site
TomSouthwell wrote:
The issue you'd have here is that Nielsen is only used in the USA. I'd have no problem with that been added, but in other countries (the U.K. at least) most of this information is actually copyrighted and you aren't allowed to display the information in a database, unless your users pay to see the information, which would also be very costly for the admins of the site
It would be fine for US (http://showbuzzdaily.com/), Canadian (http://numeris.ca), UK (http://www.barb.co.uk) and Australian (http://tvtonight.com.au/) metrics.
helmboy wrote:
It would be fine for US (http://showbuzzdaily.com/), Canadian (http://numeris.ca), UK (http://www.barb.co.uk) and Australian (http://tvtonight.com.au/) metrics.
As I said in order to display the UK figures you have to pay a fee to BARB and the figures are then sent through by another company, you aren't allowed to display them in a database unless the people viewing those figures pay a fee to do so.
I had a relationship with the company that provide the UK ratings figures for quite some time, a fee was never paid but we could only cover certain channels and in certain ways, you can't just list ratings for the networks here, as that's the area that you have to pay for, you could only put the ratings up in an article section and only certain networks will allow that as well. This was for when I worked on TVRage.
Not sure how useful Nieison numbers would be. There's no real point in comparing them as numbers have been falling consistently for the last 35-40 years. It's a great in the moment snapshot, not sure what other purpose it would serve.
TomSouthwell wrote:
I had a relationship with the company that provide the UK ratings figures for quite some time, a fee was never paid but we could only cover certain channels and in certain ways, you can't just list ratings for the networks here, as that's the area that you have to pay for, you could only put the ratings up in an article section and only certain networks will allow that as well. This was for when I worked on TVRage.
How do explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials using ratings from http://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date. and how does that website mange to list them without paying???
LadyShelley wrote:
Not sure how useful Nieison numbers would be. There's no real point in comparing them as numbers have been falling consistently for the last 35-40 years. It's a great in the moment snapshot, not sure what other purpose it would serve.
What??? They are still the driving factor of if a show dies or not.
helmboy wrote:
What??? They are still the driving factor of if a show dies or not.
Because that's an in the moment reference. Comparing the ratings of a show in 2017 to even 3-4 years ago is useless as the numbers will always be lower. Statistics back this up; ratings numbers drop across the board an average of 5% every year. What purpose does it serve to maintain database numbers that will be pointless once a program is canceled or even within a show's airing lifetime?
Nielsen numbers are great for looking at how a program ranks against other shows on the same network in the same year; that's what determines the longevity of a series, the not ratings of a series over its lifetime or against other shows on other networks in the same time slot.
To flip the question around, what purpose do you see in having this data preserved?
LadyShelley wrote:
Because that's an in the moment reference. Comparing the ratings of a show in 2017 to even 3-4 years ago is useless as the numbers will always be lower. Statistics back this up; ratings numbers drop across the board an average of 5% every year. What purpose does it serve to maintain database numbers that will be pointless once a program is canceled or even within a show's airing lifetime?
Nielsen numbers are great for looking at how a program ranks against other shows on the same network in the same year; that's what determines the longevity of a series, the not ratings of a series over its lifetime or against other shows on other networks in the same time slot.
To flip the question around, what purpose do you see in having this data preserved?
It shows the viewership trend and gives insight into why a show ended at certain point. Better question is, do you have a dislike of ratings companies that are still the driver for the advertising supported broadcast industry?
helmboy wrote:
It shows the viewership trend and gives insight into why a show ended at certain point. Better question is, do you have a dislike of ratings companies that are still the driver for the advertising supported broadcast industry?
Since LadyShelley writes the ratings pieces for the site, then I think that's doubtful
helmboy wrote:
How do explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials using ratings from http://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date. and how does that website mange to list them without paying???
As i said certain networks it's fine, commercial channels (not like the BBC) is were the problem lies. Your talking about current ratings not historical figures (although they would be listed too), historical figures are out in the public thus much easier to archive and display. It's crazy your arguing a point were I'm telling you facts, why else would I be explaining this to you
helmboy wrote:
It shows the viewership trend and gives insight into why a show ended at certain point. Better question is, do you have a dislike of ratings companies that are still the driver for the advertising supported broadcast industry?
That's my point, though, it won't. Every single show ever made (and especially made in the last 35-40 years) has had a consistent year-to-year drop in ratings of an average of 5%. If you want to see trends, you would have to record these numbers at the network level, not the program level, and even then comparing network ratings numbers year-to-year is useless after 2-3 years.
I have no issue with Nielsen at all, as I said in both of my other posts on this topic, Nielsen numbers are great for showing same year numbers for a network; it's the historical value that's in question.
LadyShelley wrote:
That's my point, though, it won't. Every single show ever made (and especially made in the last 35-40 years) has had a consistent year-to-year drop in ratings of an average of 5%. If you want to see trends, you would have to record these numbers at the network level, not the program level, and even then comparing network ratings numbers year-to-year is useless after 2-3 years.
I have no issue with Nielsen at all, as I said in both of my other posts on this topic, Nielsen numbers are great for showing same year numbers for a network; it's the historical value that's in question.
No you are wrong. Ratings are on a decline thanks to non-live viewing and the fact that the later 7day DVR numbers aren't shown an don't accurately track time-shifted viewing which advertisers don't like as the paid ads can be more easily by past. It wasn't an issue with older tape decks due to more manual nature of their use. The historical value is of value regardless of viewing patterns due the live numbers meaning the most to networks and advertisers.
Actually, I'm really not. Ratings were in decline long before VCRs, DVRs, and other time shifting tools were around. And it's a systemic decline, broadcast, cable all of it is lower year-to-year for a whole variety of reasons. Gunsmoke was the highest rated program from 1957 to 1961; it's ratings dropped from 43.1 in 1957 to 37.3 in 1961 (and it didn't go off the air until 1975 when its ratings numbers averaged 20.5) This is long before there is any sort of time-shifting to take into account.
Here's a ratings reality check for you: Those numbers we see every week? those aren't the numbers networks use when determining if a program is renewed or not. What the networks and advertisers look at are the C3 ratings (that C stands for commercial by the way). That measures what adverts are being watched during the broadcast. Those of us in Joe Public World, however, don't have access to those numbers, the best proxy we have (and it's a pretty close substitute) is Live + Same Day (basically adjusted overnights).
As an example, let's look at CBS' highest rated drama NCIS. (This is a good one to use as it's been around for forever and it's been on the same night and the same time for its entire run, so scheduling isn't a factor in its numbers)
Live + Same day ratings started in 2009, so we'll start there as well:
2009-10
4.1
2010-11
4.1
2011-12
4.0
2012-13
4.0
2013-14
3.3
2014-15
2.4
2015-16
2.2
So what can we tell from a seasonal average? Not much. Looking at these numbers it would appear the program is at death's door and should be put out of its misery. What you aren't seeing is how those numbers stack against the rest of the CBS schedule for those years. Even though the show's ratings drop, that drop is consistent across the entire television landscape. If you want to actually see trends and get glimmers on how the network execs see things, you have to be able to compare NCIS' numbers to everything else that was on CBS for each of those individual years. (BTW NCIS has been between 1.6-2.0 this season so far, and yes, that's still the highest rated scripted drama for the network.)
US programs are renewed or canceled based on several factors: How a program's ratings numbers stack up against other shows on the same network, potential for syndication deals (this is how Madam Secretary was renewed, even though its ratings numbers are low, CBS needed the show to have a certain number of total episodes for lucrative syndie deals) and how much a program costs to make.
LadyShelley wrote:
Actually, I'm really not. Ratings were in decline long before VCRs, DVRs, and other time shifting tools were around. And it's a systemic decline, broadcast, cable all of it is lower year-to-year for a whole variety of reasons. Gunsmoke was the highest rated program from 1957 to 1961; it's ratings dropped from 43.1 in 1957 to 37.3 in 1961 (and it didn't go off the air until 1975 when its ratings numbers averaged 20.5) This is long before there is any sort of time-shifting to take into account.
Pointless examples given you one picked an old show that used manually filled out forms and the NCIS one quotes user selected demo percentages not total audience numbers.
helmboy wrote:
Pointless examples given you one picked an old show that used manually filled out forms and the NCIS one quotes user selected demo percentages not total audience numbers.
You want to believe ratings have only dropped with the advent of DVRs, that's not the case at all.
What has the method got to do with anything with regard to programs before VCRs/DVRs? That's how Nielsen numbers were collected for decades. Those are the very numbers you say network execs were using for decision making purposes. As for 18-49 aged viewers, that is the closest approximation to the C3 numbers that are actually used for those same so-called network decisions. Advertisers see that demographic as the most lucrative, if a program scores well with that demo, the advertisers are happy.
None of this however changes my point that ratings information at the program (or even worse, episode) level is pointless. If Maze wants to archive this data, it should be at the network level for it to have any relevant meaning.
LadyShelley wrote:
You want to believe ratings have only dropped with the advent of DVRs, that's not the case at all.
What has the method got to do with anything with regard to programs before VCRs/DVRs? That's how Nielsen numbers were collected for decades. Those are the very numbers you say network execs were using for decision making purposes. As for 18-49 aged viewers, that is the closest approximation to the C3 numbers that are actually used for those same so-called network decisions. Advertisers see that demographic as the most lucrative, if a program scores well with that demo, the advertisers are happy.
None of this however changes my point that ratings information at the program (or even worse, episode) level is pointless. If Maze wants to archive this data, it should be at the network level for it to have any relevant meaning.
The method that has no user interaction such the total audience figures measured by metering boxes that only interact with the viewing device is less prone to human error and mis-information. The total audience in millions is therefore the only one that has any meaning to the public at large.
helmboy wrote:
The method that has no user interaction such the total audience figures measured by metering boxes that only interact with the viewing device is less prone to human error and mis-information. The total audience in millions is therefore the only one that has any meaning to the public at large.
Whether the method was prone to error or not doesn't matter as I wasn't comparing programs using two different methods. Gunsmoke's numbers dropped consistently throughout it's lifetime based on the method used at the time. NCIS' numbers have dropped consistently based on the method used now.
Total audience numbers aren't what the networks and advertisers today look at at all; they use the C3 numbers of which the Live + Same Day is the closest surrogate.
Your point for maintaining this data was:
"It shows the viewership trend and gives insight into why a show ended at certain point."
If you want to do that, you have to use what the networks and advertisers are using, which isn't total audience numbers, it's a specific demographic of a specific time period.
LadyShelley wrote:
Whether the method was prone to error or not doesn't matter as I wasn't comparing programs using two different methods. Gunsmoke's numbers dropped consistently throughout it's lifetime based on the method used at the time. NCIS' numbers have dropped consistently based on the method used now.
Total audience numbers aren't what the networks and advertisers today look at at all; they use the C3 numbers of which the Live + Same Day is the closest surrogate.
Your point for maintaining this data was:
"It shows the viewership trend and gives insight into why a show ended at certain point."
If you want to do that, you have to use what the networks and advertisers are using, which isn't total audience numbers, it's a specific demographic of a specific time period.
C3 numbers aren't publicly available. Live + Same Day numbers are.