Edmonton .14

[SarahFan]

I was told a few years a go that

Tv ratings were off limits
Give time
Momentum
Blah blah F'en blah

Is it still too early to state that versus and now NBCwhachamacallit is a bad for Indycar?

[00steven]

No it's not. These ratings are unacceptable.

[Granatelli]

are you sure that's right? i watched.

[bugeyedgomer]

NBC Sports Net TV rating for Iowa was a 0.18 with 254,000 viewers. @Ourand_SBJ says Edmonton had 194,000 viewers.
194/254 X .18=0.137480315

[beachbum]

Indy Car isn't the only sport with declining ratings. The NHL isn't doing that well either

NHL Stanley Cup Finals TV Ratings - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/06/12/2012-nhl-stanley-cup-final-scores-3rd-lowest-tv-viewership-in-at-least-17-years/137658/)

Auto racing is a niche sport, and other than NASCAR, isn't followed by the mainstream viewers. Sure, the numbers for Indy Car aren't great, but all sports are feeling the pressure of declining interest.

[Lousada]

Indycar must be the only professional sport where more people visit the event than watch it on tv...

[bugeyedgomer]

Desperate For Live Programming, NBC Sports Network Turns To Canadian Football (http://deadspin.com/5928071/desperate-for-live-programming-nbc-sports-network-turns-to-canadian-football)

[Chris R]

are you sure that's right? i watched.

me too - should that be a little better rating???? :D

[FIAT1]

I know I'm not in .14 group, but did watch the race with friends, therefore numbers are not accurate.

[Anubis]

I'd be interested to know what sort of figures the Sky coverage here in the UK gets and how it compares.

[bugeyedgomer]

I'd be interested to know what sort of figures the Sky coverage here in the UK gets and how it compares.

someone on an F1 board reported 3K for Indycar in the UK, I will try to find it

[bugeyedgomer]

here is what I pulled off a board

The week F1 got over 3 million viewers on the BBC and 900k on Sky (admittedly over 3 million less than in 2011)

Le Mans got 49k
Moto gp got 880k
Indy car got 3k

[SarahFan]

Same conversation was had at cr ap wa gon a decade ago

[00steven]

I know I'm not in .14 group, but did watch the race with friends, therefore numbers are not accurate.

Me too. The Neilson's are outdated.

[00steven]

Same conversation was had at cr ap wa gon a decade ago

Scary thought!

[nigelred5]

Indycar must be the only professional sport where more people visit the event than watch it on tv...

Only if you count the same people that attend all three days three times.......

[bugeyedgomer]

Remember also when three day totals were bogus. had that conversation a decade ago also

[anthonyvop]

Same conversation was had at cr ap wa gon a decade ago

And we all know what happened to that series.

[anthonyvop]

Me too. The Neilson's are outdated.

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.

[00steven]

The Neilson's aren't in every home. How can anyone say for certain that this many people watched. I'm not defending Indycar, these numbers are terrible. I'm just saying there not that terrible.

[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

[anthonyvop]

I especially love when people say that the Neilsen ratings don't reflect internet viewership.

Internet numbers are the easiest to acquire. I can tell you the exact number of people who visit my site at any give time. Where they are from, How long they watch, how they got there...etc.

[garyshell]

I especially love when people say that the Neilsen ratings don't reflect internet viewership.

Internet numbers are the easiest to acquire. I can tell you the exact number of people who visit my site at any give time. Where they are from, How long they watch, how they got there...etc.

Does Neilsen include those numbers, though? I was under the impression that they did not.

Gary

[bugeyedgomer]

look at the views of the full races on YT

2012 Full Races - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL790E10C24462E608&feature=plcp)

[anthonyvop]

look at the views of the full races on YT

2012 Full Races - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL790E10C24462E608&feature=plcp)


I have.....not good.

[Chris R]

look at the views of the full races on YT

2012 Full Races - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL790E10C24462E608&feature=plcp)

Interesting, after Indy views drop like a stone......

Any clue what the same numbers for NASCAR and F1 are??

[anthonyvop]

Does Neilsen include those numbers, though? I was under the impression that they did not.

Gary

They do.

Online Measurement | Online Audience, Top 10 Web Companies | Nielsen (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/measurement/online-measurement.html)

[anthonyvop]

Interesting, after Indy views drop like a stone......

Any clue what the same numbers for NASCAR and F1 are??

Don't know about NASCAR but have been told that Formula1.com video race reviews get over 200,000 views per race.

FYI
Formula1.com gets about a Half a Million Hits a day
NASCAR.com get 352,000
.
,
,
Indycar.com averages about 27,000

[call_me_andrew]

I remember when races got .12 so I'll take a .14 and smile about it too.

[Jag_Warrior]

I remember when races got .12 so I'll take a .14 and smile about it too.

I don't follow the ratings like I used to, but I don't remember races being in this range before now. Do you mean 1.2, instead of .12? I remember 1.2's (anything in the 1.0 +/- range) being the norm for over-air network and .6-.7 being the norm for cable/ESPN, etc. But there is nothing to smile about if this becomes the "new normal", as that puts ICS solidly below Grand Am (Grand Am got a .34 for Barber on Speed and Indy Car got a .25 on NBCSports for the same venue), Camping World Truck Series and the Nationwide Series. The gap to Sprint Cup is now wider than I believe it's ever been. They might also be behind NHRA now - but I'm not sure about that one.

Sponsors aren't married to the ICS. They go where the eye balls are. And they watch and follow trends (not just single data points, like this rating). But the problem is, the trend seems to be moving in the wrong direction. The last piece I read said that ratings at NBCSports have been down since the re-branding. So some of this may be the TV partner (thanks, Tony), but the ratings on ABC and ESPN aren't very good either. It really is an issue that the powers-that-be at the series need to get on top of. Will they? Probably not. :dozey:

[bugeyedgomer]

Here's a thought that was posted on the official IICS forum


Something that struck me thinking about the ratings is since INDYCAR doesn't have that many fans something that you see during the broadcasts hurts the ratings. And not Marty Reid.

When they have the crawl on the bottom of the screen, both ABC and NBC Sports Network are trying to serve their viewers. What they're doing is hurting the ratings of the IICS. They show the score of every baseball game so that less than hard core Indycar fans in Kansas city see that the Royals are ahead 3-2 in the 6th so maybe they switch over and don't come back until the game is over. That could be the case in 28 other cities with MLB teams. They show where Tiger Woods or whoever is leading a golf tournament and some number of people decide to switch over and look. Tennis, Olympics whatever.

The thing is, when the ratings for INDYCAR are as low as they are with so few viewers it doesn't take that many of them turning away to another sporting event they see an update on the crawl for and if they don't come back, 0.6.

Not only is the Chyron Crawl a problem, but those side by side ads can't be good either. I mean, you see something advertised, and you immediately lose interest in the race at hand

[SarahFan]

With today's tv technology how hard would it be to click a button on the remote and a have race recap/ position recap drop down?