Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: New Ratings  (Read 11973 times)

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27230
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
New Ratings
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2003, 04:29:20 PM »
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 10:20 AM\'] ("young talk" stations are generally on FM, use slogans like "Talk That Rocks!" and run Howard Stern) [/quote]
 Not so! Stern is on our AOR station. Our FM talk station has Tom Leykis instead. :P
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

calliaume

  • Member
  • Posts: 2151
New Ratings
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2003, 04:40:12 PM »
Quote
Add on the fact that these shows are most likely to be pre-empted by Chicago sports coverage at times. I don't have numbers, but these pre-emptions can hurt these shows in our market.

Point taken, although baseball only preempts the regular lineup three times between 7/30 and 8/13.  The things about game shows, of course, is that if you miss a show it's not really a problem.

Quote
However, I would like to know which magazines you got for those print ads. I read the TV Guides and did not get squat about WCIU's lineup. Which is a shame, really.

Saw some in the newspapers, others on sides of buses.  The Card Sharks shot of Pat Bullard rode the CTA long after the show itself had sailed into the sunset.

Brandon Brooks

  • Member
  • Posts: 1221
New Ratings
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2003, 06:48:03 PM »
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 01:35 PM\'] WCIU should be lauded for their efforts. I realy appreciate their giving us a window of fresh air from crappy sitcoms, dreary dramas, and disgusting "reality" television. However, I would like to know which magazines you got for those print ads. I read the TV Guides and did not get squat about WCIU's lineup. Which is a shame, really. [/quote]
 They definitely should.  It's cool seeing two hours of game shows a night if I want to while I'm at school (no access to GSN there).  I think that they can do that since I really don't think the station is too worried about ratings.

Brandon Brooks
Brandon Brooks

chris319

  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 10256
New Ratings
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2003, 07:18:43 PM »
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the above-the-line budget for any of these shows? Per show, per week, per season?

Fedya

  • Member
  • Posts: 2084
New Ratings
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2003, 10:59:37 PM »
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:18 PM\']Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the above-the-line budget for any of these shows? Per show, per week, per season?[/quote]
I wonder whether the Osmond Pyramid has actually given away more cash this season than the Clark $100K did in any of its three seasons:

Consider that the Clark version had the 7-11, which was won quite often, and the relatively rare (but costly!) $5K bonus for the winner of a 21-21 game.  The Osmond Pyramid may have an easier WC, and does give out more prize money to those who don't scale the pyramid in the WC, but on the other hand one could win $25K on the Clark version simply by getting to the WC both times on one show and only winning the second time; to get the $25K on the Osmond Pyramid you have to go all the way to the top of the Pyramid twice.

I also wonder whether the merchandise budget on the Osmond version is that much bigger than on the Clark version: although there are twice as many opportunities to win merchandise, the Super Six is more difficult than the Mystery 7.  And does a Sony VAIO, or the camcorders they give away, actually cost much more than the home computers or camcorders Clark gave away back in 1987/88?

(Note to the usual suspects: I'm not asking for a case of \"Mo' Money Syndrome\".  I'm simply commenting that technology seems to have made it possible in many cases to give away a much nicer version of a prize for the same amount of money.  Remember the 70s LMaD eps that gave away Record-a-Call answering machines that cost $299?)
-- Ted Schuerzinger, now blogging at http://justacineast.blogspot.com/

No Fark slashes were harmed in the making of this post

joshg

  • Member
  • Posts: 652
New Ratings
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2003, 10:05:00 AM »
Quote
To gather that local demographic information, we periodically (at least 4 times per year) ask another group of people to participate in our diary surveys. For these estimates, we contact approximately 1 million homes each year and ask them to keep track of television viewing for one week, recording their TV viewing activity in a diary. This is done for all 210 television markets in the United States in November, February, May and July and is generally referred to as the \"sweeps\".

Was anyone here actually called upon to fill out one of those hollowed diaries? I think I helped give the Davidson 'Squares' that last syndie season by watching in early 1988 and filling out that diary *very* carefully! I vaguely remember that Nielsen gave us a dollar or something like that for participating.

JOSH

(Then again, maybe I'm to blame for that last season... it all depends on your own point of view)
Because Chiffon Wrinkles...

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12461
New Ratings
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2003, 11:46:11 AM »
I was called once to be a Nielsen household.  However, one of the questions they ask you is whether you work for any local station.  At the time, I was working for three of them.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

zachhoran

  • Member
  • Posts: 0
New Ratings
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2003, 07:35:59 PM »
[quote name=\'matchgame\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 09:05 AM\']

Was anyone here actually called upon to fill out one of those hollowed diaries? I think I helped give the Davidson 'Squares' that last syndie season by watching in early 1988

(Then again, maybe I'm to blame for that last season... it all depends on your own point of view) [/quote]
 I wouldn't have blamed you, knowing that your extra viewership could have given \"Matchmaker\" or \"Yahtzee\" a second season rather than the much more tolerable by comparsion Davidson Squares.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27230
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
New Ratings
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2003, 08:40:17 PM »
[quote name=\'matchgame\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 07:05 AM\'] Was anyone here actually called upon to fill out one of those hollowed diaries? [/quote]
 Yes. They sent me a postcard to tell me I'd be getting a phone call about it. I didn't particularly like the tone, they make it sound like it's a civic duty (a concept I already have problems with) to fill the thing out instead of helping fill the coffers of a for-profit company. Then they tried to call me NO LESS THAN THREE TIMES. (Hint to telemarketers: Don't do it. If you call me and I can find a law forbidding it, I WILL pursue damages. I did last year and made a cool $500. Better yet, just burn in a firey hell and save us all the trouble.)

THEN, after all of this, I got ANOTHER postcard telling me to be sure to send in my diary (which I never got, or instantly threw out, I can't remember which. I prolly never got it, because if I did I would have checked to see if they were fool enough to put any cash in there like they used to.).

Memo to Nielsen: Screw off.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

PeterMarshallFan

  • Guest
New Ratings
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2003, 08:47:32 PM »
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 06:35 PM\'] [quote name=\'matchgame\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 09:05 AM\']

Was anyone here actually called upon to fill out one of those hollowed diaries? I think I helped give the Davidson 'Squares' that last syndie season by watching in early 1988

(Then again, maybe I'm to blame for that last season... it all depends on your own point of view) [/quote]
I wouldn't have blamed you, knowing that your extra viewership could have given \"Matchmaker\" or \"Yahtzee\" a second season rather than the much more tolerable by comparsion Davidson Squares. [/quote]
:(

But didn't Yahtzee not even finish its first season before it went under? I will admit, I've only seen a handful of episodes as I saw it tape in Atlantic City, so I don't really know for sure if it filled its first season. EoTVGS says it aired from Janurary 11 1988 to Sept. '88.

As for Matchmaker.....[Trebek] KILL IT! KILL IT! [/Trebek]
« Last Edit: August 02, 2003, 08:51:20 PM by PeterMarshallFan »

Dan Sadro

  • Guest
New Ratings
« Reply #40 on: August 02, 2003, 09:33:49 PM »
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 07:40 PM\'] Memo to Nielsen: Screw off. [/quote]
 Although that's probably a bit less... diplomatic... than others might say, it's an interesting point nonetheless.

It's amazing what power Nielsen has over television.  It's not a flawed system at all... poll a random sample (which is probably why they were so insistent that you fill out a diary -- so that the sample is random), compile, regurgitate, and profit.  It's a brilliant system if you can con viewers to do the work for little to no cost.  The problem with the Nielsens is that it's used far more extensively than it was originally intended to, and networks can and do make rash decisions in the name of ratings.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that's why we get stuck in ruts of prime-time and syndicated programming (such as the current faux-reality craze)

trainman

  • Member
  • Posts: 1816
New Ratings
« Reply #41 on: August 02, 2003, 09:45:57 PM »
I filled out a Nielsen diary in July 1999.  However, I'm sure I completely screwed up their demographics by having moved from Pittsburgh to L.A. at the end of February; they sent the diary to my old address, and it was forwarded.  (Given that, in the intervening four months, every single junk mailer had figured out that I had moved, but Nielsen hadn't, just how accurate do you think their ratings really are?)

I was living in an apartment complex with its own private cable system that didn't have GSN, so that didn't help the cause of game shows, and all the current shows were in reruns anyway.  In fact, that was the most boring week of TV ever, as I recall.  But it was very easy to fill out the diary.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2003, 09:46:12 PM by trainman »
trainman is a man of trains

tvrandywest

  • Guest
New Ratings
« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2003, 02:38:26 AM »
[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 08:33 PM\']It's not a flawed system at all... [/quote]
We just read why it's flawed. Only a certain kind of person will participate. Sure, the sample selection is great methodology, but many of those selected never participate.

I worked for Simmons Market Research which rates magazine readership. They use a one-time personal inverview involving recall of mags and specific ads. We also gathered a lot of demographic and psychographic info to help answer \"nationally, who reads each of these mags\". Interesting stuff. Similar to Nielsen's methodology, 20 households were randomly selected from a cluster (smaller than a zip code), and the local field interviewer tries to get 15 or more of those households to respond to make that cluster usable. The interviewer gets bonuses for each household above the 15 that he can get. I was so adept at getting into tough homes that they sent me around the country to fill in households from under represented clusters.

I can tell you what kind of person lets you into their home easily, who requires some very creative terms to overcome their objections, and who resists tooth and nail, despite the gifts and cash to entice their one visit involvement. Compare that to the much more imposing requirements to be part of Nielsen's most prized sample - the people-meter homes providing the national \"overnights\".

Multiple phone and in-person interviews, installers to bring in the hardware and connect the rig to your phone line, entering demographic info of everyone in the household into diarys, promises to press your individual button regularly so that they know which member(s) of the household are watching, more phone contacts, allowing an installer back in your home to remove the rig, etc.

The point? Only certain kinds of people are willing to grant you a single in-person interview no matter how much you play Monty Hall with gifts to keep their interest. Now add all the crap required to be part of that Nielsen sample and you can immediately count out busy, upperclass professionals - no doctors, lawyers, senior management types, etc.. Count out anyone living in an expensive home - they don't want strangers traipsing through their private domain unless you're talking thousands of dollars. Forget homes in the central city - they are sure you're trying to rip them off in someway, from a high pressure sales pitch to casing their homes for a later burglary. Unless it's a dirt poor household in an urban area - they'll say anything they think you want to hear for $10 cash and trinkets for their kids. Forget any of the surprisingly high number of households where an illegal lives, or where someone in the home has an outstanding arrest warrant or is a parole violator. Same for many of the owners of homes who have converted their garage to an apartment without benefit of proper zoning and/or building permits. There's also no way with potential participants of a specific psychographic profile - the paranoid and government fearing, as well as the just plain rebellious or aging hippie. Getting the picture?

My favorite was a guy in his 30s who was living with 2 underage girls. He was providing them with drugs, screwing their brains out, and pimping them. Ya gotta love it! Yea, I got his interview and household demo info, including the girls - I didn't need their names, only his. I ended up staying for dinner and well into the evening.

Still reading? Get a life!   ;-)  

While, as fans, we'd LOVE to be part of a Nielsen survey, for most random folks this is as interesting as a survey about root canal, and they just don't care nor want to submit to the time and trouble. So if only certain people can be coerced to participate at all, and many of them fill out the entire diary when the letter comes to send it back, I submit that this is not even close to a sample of the population. Flawed? Hell yes.

It's like navigating Vermont with a map of New Hampshire. It's the only map you have, so you use it as best you can.


Randy
tvrandywest.com

Dan Sadro

  • Guest
New Ratings
« Reply #43 on: August 03, 2003, 06:03:38 PM »
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Aug 3 2003, 01:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Aug 2 2003, 08:33 PM\']It's not a flawed system at all... [/quote]
We just read why it's flawed. Only a certain kind of person will participate. Sure, the sample selection is great methodology, but many of those selected never participate. [/quote]
 Wow -- I just reread what I wrote and was confused myself.

From a statistical standpoint, the system that they use isn't flawed.  Random means random, and you need to go tooth and nail to get these random people to do what you need them to do.  As was stated, however, it's tough and you'll never have that perfect statistical sample.

Maybe we can blame these tinfoil hat-wearing or business professional people for the faux-reality craze.

Ian Wallis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3648
New Ratings
« Reply #44 on: August 05, 2003, 10:11:32 AM »
Quote
Was anyone here actually called upon to fill out one of those hollowed diaries?


I filled out a TV diary in 1979 - luckily (or unluckily) I was sick three days that week and stayed home from school.  I made sure I filled out my diary with my favorite game shows for those three days.

More recently, I did a radio one and got paid $5.  I'd love to do a TV one again!
For more information about Game Shows and TV Guide Magazine, click here:
https://gamesandclassictv.neocities.org/
NEW LOCATION!!!