Edmonton .14

[anthonyvop]

The Neilson's aren't in every home. How can anyone say for certain that this many people watched.

It is a scientific formula. For all the complaining nobody has been able to actually discredit it or offer a better way.

I'm not defending Indycar, these numbers are terrible. I'm just saying there not that terrible.

You could be right. They could be worse.

Even if the numbers of viewers was 50% higher than what Nielsen is recording(Not bloody likely) they are still painfully low.

[00steven]

Even if the numbers of viewers was 50% higher than what Nielsen is recording(Not bloody likely) they are still painfully low.

We agree on that.

[SarahFan]

The number could actually be lower just as easily higher also

[bugeyedgomer]

I have a good article somewhere on how Nielsen does it thing. One thing I remember is, in a Nielsen home, there is a box that records what channel the tuner is tuned to, regardless of anyone watching. And then there is another setup where the people have a remote and press a button to indicate they are actively watching.

and then there is another system:

The way mine works is:
Leslie Nielsen calls me up pretty much randomly and asks what I'm watching. Then I holler the name of the show into the speakers.
If Leslie's on a movie shoot or on vacation, it's Brigitte Nielsen who calls.

Huh. I have Connie Nielsen call me. She's very nice.

[Jag_Warrior]

The people who say that are only those with poor #

Fact is most potential big sponsors take the Nielson rating extremely seriously. They just don't get total numbers but all sorts of info. Age, Ethnicity, Income, Sex, Geographic demographics are among the information provided.

Of course they also look at Internet data and honestly if I worked for the ICS I would hide all the sharp objects in the office to keep the marketing people from killing themselves when they see that.

This is very true - and not just in regard to the Nielsen numbers. When the data is "good", or at least acceptable, no one will ever question its validity. That only happens when people are presented with data that they want to deny.

Without measuring 100% of a population (in this case, "people who watch television") there is no way to say with 100% certainty what the population's participation level is. If .14 is not a valid or accurate measure, then what is the correct measurement... and how was it derived??? So unless the ICS can come up with a rival scientific sampling methodology, that shows different (better) results, I suggest they spend more time trying to "fix" the problem, and less time trying to deny that they have a problem.

Another thing, if the number is wrong/under-reported for the ICS, wouldn't it be wrong/under-reported for every other sport and TV program??? How is it that it's just wrong for ICS? I don't hear the NASCAR folks complaining. Linearity and bias issues aside, if a ruler is wrong, it generally measures everything wrong, correct? It wouldn't measure a 1x2 incorrectly and a 2x4 correctly. And like several have said, we began having these VERY same conversations years ago, when both CART/CCWS and the IRL began seeing their ratings tank. They just need to get with it and stop screwing around at ICS/IMS!

[garyshell]

While no one has come up with a "better way", I question Nielson's ability to get any sort of accurate measure in a day where there are hundreds of channels and even other methods of reception of video media (aka the internet). In a time when we had three major networks and at most 6 TV channels in a city, Nielson's methodology could make a very accurate measure. Now, the shear number of samples necessary to attain scientific sample coverage over such a diverse data set is staggering.

But they are the only gam in town. So they are the only measure we have.

Gary

[SarahFan]

This onversation is a sad carnival mirror of dozens of others from a decade ago..

After all this time especially with technology Internet blah blah etc that the Neilsens would have been rendered inaccurate and outdated...

They haven't

.14 even with a margin of error is simply pathetic.....

[anthonyvop]

While no one has come up with a "better way", I question Nielson's ability to get any sort of accurate measure in a day where there are hundreds of channels and even other methods of reception of video media (aka the internet). In a time when we had three major networks and at most 6 TV channels in a city, Nielson's methodology could make a very accurate measure. Now, the shear number of samples necessary to attain scientific sample coverage over such a diverse data set is staggering.

But they are the only gam in town. So they are the only measure we have.

Gary

As the form of watching TV has changed with technology so has Nielsen.....They know how many are watching on legitimate internet portals(they don't include pirated streams but there is another service that does). Which is not good news for Indycar as their Internet presence is embarrassing.

[Jag_Warrior]

While I understand that there are more ways of following programming now than in previous years, and one has to admit that that may affect the outright accuracy of the Nielsen estimate (it's never been stated as a precise number, no sample based data ever is), one has to also accept that if the Nielsen estimate is under-reporting Indy Car by say, 20% (an extreme), rather than whatever their margin of error is (probably 3.5% or less), then it would also be under-reporting other sports and programming by roughly that amount too, right? That is, unless someone could show a valid reason for why the Indy Car Series' number and/or its fan base population are unique. So if that's not the case, then the margin of error should be roughly the same from sport to sport, or series to series. And then what it comes down to is relative performance. Go back to the 1x2 versus 2x4 example. Even if you have a dud ruler and you end up cutting your 1x2 short by 1/4 an inch, you're most likely going to end up cutting your 2x4 short by roughly the same amount or percentage of the total cut.

So we go back to what a sponsor would probably say: "OK, so you say that your ratings are being under-reported by Nielsen by... 20%? Well, NASCAR is getting a 3.0 versus your .15 +/-. We would say that if your ratings are being under-reported, then so are theirs. And no matter how you look at it (unless you claim to have an army of invisible fans that Nielsen can't see), their ratings are still over 2000% greater, on average, than yours. So... we will need an explanation and an action plan from you before writing any more checks. Thanks for lunch."

These ratings are a sad fact. And short of contrary (valid) data, they do remain factual in the eyes of sponsors. If not the fans, then the series most certainly needs to address this ASAP.

[SarahFan]

Jag:

All that and I said earlier .. It's equally as accurate to say they are being over reported also