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]

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

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 %?

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.