It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here's the info on the news networks that will put things into perspective

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I work in the industry. I see the Nielsen data everyday and it's part of my job to make those numbers go up, by any amount, and keep them up. If they fall - I need to know why, and what to do to stop it.

That being said - there's a lot of chatter here on ATS as of late about "Fox being the #1 network..." or "MSNBC's ratings being in the crapper" or some other jibberish that's been painted-up to suit whatever political slant the poster holds dear. Here's the deal -

Let's take my particular market - Atlanta. It's the 8th largest "media market" in the U.S.. Let's look at Glenn Beck's timeslot (I am actually looking at the data right now...). Hrmmm... Atlanta... Deep south... Uber Conservative... Numbers should be good, right? I mean "Fox is the #1 news network.."

Ok - so the CUME (cumulative average viewership) for Beck's show yesterday was "BMS". What's BMS? "Below Measurable Standards". Yes - it means that there were not enough Nielsen-monitored televisions tuned-in to Beck to even register in the data.

What about PBS - which was airing "Arthur"?

Ooooh, about a .6 - which means that 6/10ths of one percent of homes in Atlanta were watching Arthur.

In summary - Arthur, on PBS, pulled more viewers than Beck in the same timeslot. Does this mean that Fox is full of crap? Nope - here's why:

Looking at MSNBC for the same slot: BMS
Looking at CNN for the same slot - .4

Ooops - CNN beat out Fox. But this is Atlanta, the home of CNN, so that may be part of it.

Now - let's put all this in perspective.

Let's take a prime-time blockbuster program like "Lost". The average CUME for that show is 12.7. In other words, over 12% of televisions are tuned to Lost when it's on. Staying in that same timeslot, I'll move down the column to CNN - 0.2. Ok - moving on to Fox - 0.3...and MSNBC - BMS.

So you see, yes - Fox does have the "most viewed news network", but that viewing audience is so infinitesimally small compared to the networks that it's almost insignificant. Of course, in the economies of a national-scale, a 0.3 is still a wad of people so there's money to be made, no doubt, and this is ONE REASON why charlatans like Beck and Olbermann are around.

Another reason they're around is to drum up controversy, because if they can get into the press, if they can "get ink" - it'll drive more viewers to their shows and maybe, just maybe - they'll go from a BMS to a 0.1.

But "Arthur" will still be kicking their ass.

In summary - don't get all hot and bothered by what you see, hear or read regarding these "marquee" news programs. In the grand scheme of things, they're just white noise that caters to the far reaches of either party.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by shrike071]




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
so in fact no one is watching the news
they have allready lost there audience
maybe there wrong with there saying of violence sells and pepole are not interested in happy news
i know myshelf i havent watched news channels in 10-15 years because i just got sick of being lied to
has there numbers always been so low or is this something recent



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 


That's true. The overall viewership of the news networks combined is probably less than 1/10th of the total TV and cable viewership for a given time period.

As for the numbers from Atlanta, you're right that the deep south tends to be quite conservative, but that doesn't hold true in most of the major cities. Look at the last election. Atlanta lies in Fulton and Dekalb counties. Obama won 67% and 79% of the vote, respectively. Needless to say, it doesn't surprise me that Fox News doesn't do well there at all .



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dean007
has there numbers always been so low or is this something recent


Before cable, it was very common to have one network pull down a 30, or even a 50 share. The finale of M.A.S.H. had over 70% of homes in the ConUS tuned in.

That is something that will never happen again.

Now, in the post cable/sat world, if a major network - one of the big 3 - ABC, CBS, NBC - pulls down anything over a 15 CUME, it's a huge deal. In the early days of CNN, they might have enjoyed between a.5 and a 2.0 AQH (average quarter hour), but really - that's about the best it's ever been.

So to answer your question, no - it has almost always been like this for the news networks. The deal with news, is that people don't tune in to CNN or Fox and watch for hours (unless they're sick..). They watch at the top or bottom of the hour, get their news, and move along.

In the Beck/Olbermann world, they are 'appointment television', meaning that people seek out the programs and make time to watch them. Now, with that in-mind, look at their numbers - BMS or below a 1.0.

Hrmmm... I wonder what percentage of the Democrat or Republican parties would be considered "fringe"?

Could it be somewhere along the same %?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Of course "Lost" will be winning hands down.

I mean, if you have a Nielson box hooked up to your set, you're more than likely already part of a bubble gum fan boi pop-culture to begin with.

I seriously doubt any of those statistics could represent the actual majority of "average" Americans.

Sure, maybe back when times were different, before the "novelty" of even having a TV SET wore off, (probably back in the 50's) but most people I know wouldn't want anything to do with one of those things.

edit: To the poster below... you're right. I've changed my "example" to "Lost", which was a whopping 12.7% compared to the .6% of Arthur.


[edit on 28-10-2009 by lernmore]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I too have my doubts about the effectiveness of neilson boxes, but then again, statistics work in funny ways, and they could be spot on.

Either way, great post. Star+Flag. This was a very informative post, for me.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
Of course Arthur will be winning hands down.

I mean, if you have a Nielson box hooked up to your set, you're more than likely already part of a bubble gum fan boi pop-culture to begin with.

I seriously doubt any of those statistics could represent the actual majority of "average" Americans.

Sure, maybe back when times were different, before the "novelty" of even having a TV SET wore off, (probably back in the 50's) but most people I know wouldn't want anything to do with one of those things.



That makes no sense. Arthur has nothing to do with the teenie bop bubble gum crowd. It's on PBS for God's sake.

Nielson ratings are still accurate and still a reliable source of information, and I believe they've upgraded their rating system to a digital source, so it's not like they're way behind the times.

I personally don't know anyone who sits down to watch a cozy night of Beck crying about perceived threats to his beloved nation or Olbermann poking fun at the tears. I know that I have much better ways to spend my time, and I think most other people do too.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 


How does this Neilson rating system work? How many people nation wide are "connected" to the Neilson system? Is it a pro rated system,like one Neilson rating per thousand potential viewers?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
its kinda funny then with those numbers so low how come there are so many news channels programs ect out of the 80 cable channels i have about 15-20 channels must be news or news type channels
you would think they would be pulling 20 -30 percent kinda amounts
to justify having so many news channels
i guess since cnn started everyone wanted there own news channel whether anyone was going to watch it or not



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Nielson ratings are still accurate and still a reliable source of information,


That's you're opinion, and I've already stated mine.
I don't watch main stream television, and don't really care too much about the subject, but I did leave a comment about my views on the validity of Nielson ratings. If you care to provide some proof of its accuracy I'd be glad to read about the technology.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
Of course "Lost" will be winning hands down.

I mean, if you have a Nielson box hooked up to your set, you're more than likely already part of a bubble gum fan boi pop-culture to begin with.

I seriously doubt any of those statistics could represent the actual majority of "average" Americans.

Sure, maybe back when times were different, before the "novelty" of even having a TV SET wore off, (probably back in the 50's) but most people I know wouldn't want anything to do with one of those things.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by lernmore]


Nielsen has moved to a digital monitoring system and once you give permission - it's quickly forgotten (and that's what they want...)

To say that you doubt the "statistics represent the average American" is unfortunate, and wrong. There have been countless sociological models run, countless data sets and billions of dollars spent in the pursuit of accuracy.

Here's the lowdown on how it works: click me

The networks simply MUST have total and complete confidence in these data, or they have nothing to base their advertising costs on.

My point in using "Lost" against any of the other news networks is to demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the difference in audience size, and that what CNN (or Fox) thinks is "winning the cycle" is really superfluous.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by shrike071]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrike071
Nielsen has moved to a digital monitoring system and once you give permission - it's quickly forgotten (and that's what they want...)
(bold emphasis mine)

That's my point exactly. It's my belief that you already have to be a person with a certain mind-set to give someone that kind of permission in the first place.
They can spend trillions if they want, and unless you include those who say "no thank you" into the final statistics, I just don't see how they could end up with numbers that reflect reality.

Of course, this is only my opinion, but unless they have a way of reading minds, it is what it is. Interesting subject I've never really thought about before though.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Here are the real viewer numbers. News has always been a smaller audience than most anything else which is what the OP is trying to say.
Trying to twist it around that Fox is not on top for news is very misleading at best.


5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 3,111,000 viewers (796,000) (1,408,000)
Situation Room—681,000 viewers (122,000) (281,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—601,000 viewers (126,000) (282,000)
Fast Money—238,000 viewers (118,000) (136,000)
Prime News–263,000 viewers (122,000) (176,000)

6PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report with Bret Baier– 2,485,000 viewers (543,000) (1,107,000)
Situation Room—615,000 viewers (149,000) (266,000)
Ed Show—667,000 viewers (150,000) (362,000)
Mad Money —179,000 viewers (88,000) (103,000)
Prime News — 238,000 viewers (116,000) (148,000)

7PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The Fox Report w/ Shep –2,017,000 viewers (440,000) (922,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight—522,000 viewers (178,000) (242,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews—669,000 viewers (171,000) (362,000)
Kudlow Report — 159,000 viewers (89,000) (104,000)
Issues– 435,000 viewers (140,000) (209,000)

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 3,760,000 viewers (936,000) (1,682,000)
Campbell Brown – 592,000 viewers (140,000) (210,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 1,312,000 viewers (365,000) (696,000)
Bio: Sam Walton – 298,000 viewers (144,000) (185,000)
Nancy Grace – 1,091,000 viewers (368,000) (534,000)

9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity –2,686,000 viewers (814,000) (1,257,000)
Larry King Live —699,000 viewers (250,000) (310,000)
Rachel Maddow Show —1,122,000 viewers (334,000) (571,000)
Executive Vision 5 — a scratch w/122,000 viewers (a scratch w/37,000) (a scratch w/44,000)
Joy Behar- 423,000 viewers (144,000) (216,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren —2,011,000 viewers (547,000) (931,000)
Anderson Cooper 360 —573,000 viewers (196,000) (272,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 645,000 viewers (205,000) (298,000)
Marijuana Inc. – 275,000 viewers (118,000) (110,000)
Nancy Grace –565,000 viewers (298,000) (286,000)



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
And of course I won't BS you either.
Here is the link, look around yourself.

tvbythenumbers.com... ews-ratings-for-tuesday-october-27-2009/31886#more-31886

Bill O'Reilly come in at 21 out of 25 on Cable. He is the only news show for the day that is in there. Beck is the other one that has gotten in there in the past.

tvbythenumbers.com... chart/31697#more-31697

[edit on 28-10-2009 by j2000]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
Here are the real viewer numbers. News has always been a smaller audience than most anything else which is what the OP is trying to say.
Trying to twist it around that Fox is not on top for news is very misleading at best.



I was not twisting anything - I even stated as much in my first post.


What that website doesn't tell you, and where Nielsen earns its stripes - is telling you when they tune in and for how long. Most monitoring systems are broken down into quarter-hours, and (for a fee) they can get even more detailed. So yes, Olbermann may have gotten 1,312,000 viewers - but when was that number hit? Shortly after it started? Shortly before it ended? At the bottom of the hour? I think if you were to look at the audience carried through the hour, it'd be much smaller.

The essence of my post was to encourage folks to keep in-mind the congregation size for each of these preachers. They make a lot of noise and raise a lot of fuss, but their actual 'impact' is only among a devoted few. For the vast majority - they're entertainment.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 


So exactly how many Nielsen enabled televisions are there in Atlanta?

How does it compare to other large cities in enabled televisions?

I personally would never allow it on mine, but that's just me.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 





Nielsen has moved to a digital monitoring system and once you give permission - it's quickly forgotten (and that's what they want...)

I was in a house today remodeling a bed/bath and trust me when I tell you your not going to "forget" you are a Neilson family.There is a box with 10 leds that go crazy every 42 minutes until you put in a code the amount of hardware in the bedroom filled up three milk crates with enough wire to run 10 tvs,no way your gonna "forget"
Now let me tell you she is a single mother who runs a daycare out of her house .What do you think she has on the TV?It ain't CNN or FOX,I don't know if she is typical but for the meager money she gets I;m sure it's people who struggle who agree to do it.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


She's running the old box. The new box is much smaller and every person in the house has their own "coded" remote. It has a much smaller footprint and is easier to use.

You, and the poster above you, are correct - the system is flawed, but without monitoring what everyone watches, it's the best we can do



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 


There's been some interesting replies to your thread. It seems like people really want to believe that the cable news networks are paragons of public opinion.

Interesting, to say the least!




top topics



 
6

log in

join