Arts & Entertainment
Nielsen Ratings: An Inaccurate Truth
Out of date television ratings system exposed
April 26, 2007 - 12:00am
Television epitomizes all that is undemocratic when it comes to assessing opinions. Its method of ratings measurement makes the 2000 election fiasco seem fair and just; most citizens over the age of 18 still had the opportunity to cast their ballot regardless of whether or not their opinions were ultimately disregarded due to faulty voting methods. In the television world, however, public opinion is not so inclusive in its tabulations, ignoring large segments of the population in favor of simplicity.
Since its inception in the early ’60s, Nielsen ratings data has overlooked college students living away from home. Ignoring this large chunk of the 18 to 24-year-old key advertising demographic notably contradicted this country’s claims of equality and justice. More importantly, to advertisers and network execs anyway, this exclusion inaccurately portrayed what people were actually watching. In an attempt to improve its reputation and avoid becoming obsolete due to burgeoning television viewing methods, Nielsen took its first step towards compiling more accurate ratings; this past January, they began to include student data in their calculations.
Recent analyses from this new student-inclusion era have concluded that the primetime audience is up by 12 percent, daytime viewership is up five percent, and late night viewership is up 9 percent. Logically, these increases should be expected; adding more people to the count results in a higher number of total viewers. Most importantly, though, is the fact that these new viewers come from the age demographic which is most coveted by advertisers seeking to influence young, whimsical buyers.
That is not to say that now, with college students added to the count, that Nielsen ratings are the end-all-be-all calculator of what people are watching. This is hardly the case. The Nielsen system is outdated, not accounting for episode downloads (and I’m not talking about the kind from “insert-network-here.com,” which are teeming with ads and thus scrupulously observed) or DVR viewing more than 24 hours after a show airs.
The biggest problem for Nielsen is that it relies on excruciatingly small samples to predict what the rest of the country is watching. There are approximately 10,000 households with Nielsen set top boxes across the country, about 450 of which include college students. And out of those 450, 30 percent agreed to have their children’s viewing habits recorded while away at school. This translates to roughly 135 students — a painfully small number to be considered representative of the entire country’s college student population, yet still more than the zero who represented us before. Furthermore, this small sample is not atypical for Nielsen data, which, at the outset, posed little problems due to the small number of channels. In the digital age, however, with more channels than we know what to do with, such a small sample can hardly be taken seriously as an accurate representation of the entire country’s viewing preferences.
But since Nielsen’s data is the best system we have, the networks have to work with it. The addition of the college demographic certainly improved Nielsen’s status, rising in rank from an arbitrary gauge to a slightly more accurate marker still rooted largely in guesswork and probability. And unfortunately entire livelihoods are built around these probabilities.
Simply stated, our television culture today owes itself to these numbers. They determine what we watch, when we watch it, and how often we watch it. Low numbers mean low ad prices, which translates into low profits for the networks. Thus any chance to improve the accuracy of Nielsen data is a welcome advancement. The real question is why it took so long for Nielsen researchers to realize the college population watches TV, and a lot of it.
College-friendly shows like Grey’s Anatomy, Family Guy and House have unsurprisingly seen their ratings rise. Although it is difficult to discern what part of House’s surge is due to its post-Idol timeslot and what can be attributed to the new demographic inclusion, a series-high 27.34 million viewers, recorded in late January, speaks for itself.
While American Idol, a ratings powerhouse, is a major contributor to House’s springtime ratings surge, the college factor is just as important. This year House is consistently keeping 90 percent of Idol’s 18 to 24-year-old lead-in audience — far greater than last year’s 70 percent average retention rate.
Perhaps the most important conclusion that can be drawn from calculating students’ viewing habits of live TV is that appointment television is not a thing of the past. Despite the prevalence of downloading shows on university campuses, students still sit down to watch TV when they can.
In the short term, downloading may deprive a show of a few well earned ratings points, but in the long run it brings widespread exposure and new loyal viewers. And ultimately, when students can actually take the time to watch the show as it airs, they will: a reality now verified by Nielsen’s more democratic measurement methods.
Television epitomizes all that is undemocratic when it comes to assessing opinions. Its method of ratings measurement makes the 2000 election fiasco seem fair and just; most citizens over the age of 18 still had the opportunity to cast their ballot regardless of whether or not their opinions were ultimately disregarded due to faulty voting methods. In the television world, however, public opinion is not so inclusive in its tabulations, ignoring large segments of the population in favor of simplicity.
Since its inception in the early ’60s, Nielsen ratings data has overlooked college students living away from home. Ignoring this large chunk of the 18 to 24-year-old key advertising demographic notably contradicted this country’s claims of equality and justice. More importantly, to advertisers and network execs anyway, this exclusion inaccurately portrayed what people were actually watching. In an attempt to improve its reputation and avoid becoming obsolete due to burgeoning television viewing methods, Nielsen took its first step towards compiling more accurate ratings; this past January, they began to include student data in their calculations.
Recent analyses from this new student-inclusion era have concluded that the primetime audience is up by 12 percent, daytime viewership is up five percent, and late night viewership is up 9 percent. Logically, these increases should be expected; adding more people to the count results in a higher number of total viewers. Most importantly, though, is the fact that these new viewers come from the age demographic which is most coveted by advertisers seeking to influence young, whimsical buyers.
That is not to say that now, with college students added to the count, that Nielsen ratings are the end-all-be-all calculator of what people are watching. This is hardly the case. The Nielsen system is outdated, not accounting for episode downloads (and I’m not talking about the kind from “insert-network-here.com,” which are teeming with ads and thus scrupulously observed) or DVR viewing more than 24 hours after a show airs.
The biggest problem for Nielsen is that it relies on excruciatingly small samples to predict what the rest of the country is watching. There are approximately 10,000 households with Nielsen set top boxes across the country, about 450 of which include college students. And out of those 450, 30 percent agreed to have their children’s viewing habits recorded while away at school. This translates to roughly 135 students — a painfully small number to be considered representative of the entire country’s college student population, yet still more than the zero who represented us before. Furthermore, this small sample is not atypical for Nielsen data, which, at the outset, posed little problems due to the small number of channels. In the digital age, however, with more channels than we know what to do with, such a small sample can hardly be taken seriously as an accurate representation of the entire country’s viewing preferences.
But since Nielsen’s data is the best system we have, the networks have to work with it. The addition of the college demographic certainly improved Nielsen’s status, rising in rank from an arbitrary gauge to a slightly more accurate marker still rooted largely in guesswork and probability. And unfortunately entire livelihoods are built around these probabilities.
Simply stated, our television culture today owes itself to these numbers. They determine what we watch, when we watch it, and how often we watch it. Low numbers mean low ad prices, which translates into low profits for the networks. Thus any chance to improve the accuracy of Nielsen data is a welcome advancement. The real question is why it took so long for Nielsen researchers to realize the college population watches TV, and a lot of it.
College-friendly shows like Grey’s Anatomy, Family Guy and House have unsurprisingly seen their ratings rise. Although it is difficult to discern what part of House’s surge is due to its post-Idol timeslot and what can be attributed to the new demographic inclusion, a series-high 27.34 million viewers, recorded in late January, speaks for itself.
While American Idol, a ratings powerhouse, is a major contributor to House’s springtime ratings surge, the college factor is just as important. This year House is consistently keeping 90 percent of Idol’s 18 to 24-year-old lead-in audience — far greater than last year’s 70 percent average retention rate.
Perhaps the most important conclusion that can be drawn from calculating students’ viewing habits of live TV is that appointment television is not a thing of the past. Despite the prevalence of downloading shows on university campuses, students still sit down to watch TV when they can.
In the short term, downloading may deprive a show of a few well earned ratings points, but in the long run it brings widespread exposure and new loyal viewers. And ultimately, when students can actually take the time to watch the show as it airs, they will: a reality now verified by Nielsen’s more democratic measurement methods.
Nielson Ratings
Nielson ratings are from the stone age. Ratings are based on set top boxes with a small sample of the population. At this point with the advancement of technology we should have an accurate/ precise assessement of what people are watching. I wouldnt be surprised if the cable companies soon release ratings and replace Nielson. After all how does Nielson accurately measure DVR, XBox 360 TV Downloads, On demand, Downloading, DVD Sales, Network Website downloads, etc. Too many good shows are taken off the air; because of Nielson.
the neilsons are a dinosaur!
the neilsons are a dinosaur! In this day and age of technology you would think we would be able to accurately identify what the viewing population is watching on television. I think we are plenty capable and ready to put into place a new system to track viewers. so what is the hold up?
the data is there now
The data is all there in the hands of the cable companies. Why its not being used is a matter of ancient technology, old thinking and fear. There is no reason the cable companies cant track any users cable usage from live shows being watched to DVRed shows, On-Demand and the like. Once you have all that data, you can go so much further than simple ratings... you can go all the way into directly segmented ad serving based on demographic and viewer history (all the way down to an individual user level).
Imagine you come home to sit down and watch you latest episode of Heroes you DVRed from Monday and as you are about to skim over the commercials you notice an actual ad that relates to YOU... your needs and desires as based on your previous viewing history and demographic and geographic information (not personal information, which crosses into privacy issues). You may actually stop the fast forward and watch the ad. Most people dont care if you know that info, as long as you give them what they want or need. THAT is thinking in the future.
I personally believe the
I personally believe the Nielson ratings are a farce and are in part covertly controlled by, guess who, the networks themselves. When I worked for Directv shortly after the rollout of their new DVR, the box had the means of very accurately tracking what each DVR viewer was watching at any given moment. In fact, there was an interactive option to view real time what was the most popular shows being watched at any given time. Directv was very excited about it and had big plans for making money by being able to sell this information to advertisers, and other interested parties. At the time Directv was owned by Newscorp, who just happens to own lots of moviemaking studios, newsreporting, and media entities. Newscorp is a giant mega monster corporation that owns lots and lots of smaller companies. Anyway, after all this hype, the next thing that happened is that Directv quietly made an agreement to provide the "programs viewed" information to Nielsen and it kind of just faded away. What was interesting to me is that at any given moment, you could interactively view what the most popular shows being viewed in real time, and that information was alway totally different than what nielsen said was most watched. nielson would usually have it like, whatever is on CBS as number one, fowwed by ABC, CNN, etc. with Fox News Channel much farther down in ratings. Yet, when I looked at my DVR realtime info, Fox News Channel was usually at the top with ABC, CBS, CNN way down or not even on the page. If you ask me, it's a good ol boy network and the advertisers are getting duped into buying and supporting the big networks choices. That may explain why some of the big companies are in such bad financial woes. They've been throwing away money at low rated shows that they have been lied to and told were top rated by nielson.
"Yet, when I looked at my
"Yet, when I looked at my DVR realtime info, Fox News Channel was usually at the top with ABC, CBS, CNN way down or not even on the page."
Of course the other explanation for this is that Rupert Murdoch owns Newscorp.
The biggest flaw with the
The biggest flaw with the Nielsen Ratings is they are not random in the statistical sense of the word. Of the small fraction of the population that is selected only those that actually accept are used as the sample size creating a bias in the numbers from the start. Worse as revealed by USAToday advertisers will not pay for time shifted (recorded for replay at a different time) programs adding even more bias to the numbers. The final bias is the fact that channel selection varies so widely and the new arrival of internet TV which is totally outside of the Nielsen system as it currently is set up.