Tenoris4Jazz Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 To look at this another way, I just calculated the cumulative number. That's the number of anyone who watched even a minute. That estimate from Nielsen data was 4.412 million people. Then I calculated only people who watched 13 minutes or more. That's the equivalent of one corps performance. That estimate was 947 thousand people who watched for at least 13 minutes. (Poor analogy. Maybe someone can come up with a better one) It's the difference in fishing for that one giant fish from a bass boat, or fishing for tuna with a commercial fishing boat. So 4 out of 5 people that tuned in to the ESPN2 broadcast didn't even stay long enough to see a full show. That doesn't sound very good at first glance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barigirl78 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 It's the difference in fishing for that one giant fish from a bass boat, or fishing for tuna with a commercial fishing boat. So 4 out of 5 people that tuned in to the ESPN2 broadcast didn't even stay long enough to see a full show. That doesn't sound very good at first glance. It's not unusual for TV viewing. There's a lot of people cruising around the dial who just land for a few minutes on something and move on. Do you have any idea how many people just watch the final 2 minutes(on the clock) of a basketball game or just watch the end part of Survivor to see who gets voted off? Quite a number. The typical DVR viewer only watches 75% of a commercial TV programs because 25% is the commercials they zip through. The longer the telecast, the less likely people see the whole thing and this was 116 minutes long. Every time someone changed channels during a commercial, that time wouldn't be counted as "viewed". This is why cumulative numbers are not used often in the TV business. The other reason is that advertisers don't really care how many people watch the whole show. They want to know how many people can see their ad. Their ad isn't the whole show. It's an individual period of time in the show. I bet most of the people who tuned into the DCI streaming only watched part of the shows. I know I did. Sometimes I would tune in toward the end because I was out or something and just skim through, watching pieces of each show until the stream would turn off. Out of a 6-hour competition, I may have only watched an hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) It's not unusual for TV viewing. There's a lot of people cruising around the dial who just land for a few minutes on something and move on. Do you have any idea how many people just watch the final 2 minutes(on the clock) of a basketball game or just watch the end part of Survivor to see who gets voted off? Quite a number. The typical DVR viewer only watches 75% of a commercial TV programs because 25% is the commercials they zip through. The longer the telecast, the less likely people see the whole thing and this was 116 minutes long. Every time someone changed channels during a commercial, that time wouldn't be counted as "viewed". This is why cumulative numbers are not used often in the TV business. The other reason is that advertisers don't really care how many people watch the whole show. They want to know how many people can see their ad. Their ad isn't the whole show. It's an individual period of time in the show. I bet most of the people who tuned into the DCI streaming only watched part of the shows. I know I did. Sometimes I would tune in toward the end because I was out or something and just skim through, watching pieces of each show until the stream would turn off. Out of a 6-hour competition, I may have only watched an hour. This makes total sense. I also think you are right about watching the total show. Ive done this practically since birth and I could never sit through an entire show. I admire those who could . Especially WGI YIKES. Funny though when I judge its very different , mainly because the focus is different and trying to help all who I judge and it's a job. I would totally question " newer viewers " and if it ever had any impact that many think had or could. By new I mean someone totally not connected to the activity at all. Band people and WGI etc etc I see as connected. So I agree totally with your last line also. Edited August 27, 2015 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Nobody here has to show YOU anything if they don't want to. And with that insulting overture from you, I choose not too. So you can move along now. Nothing to see here from me, as I'm not taking the bait ( besides, I never ever claimed above that he " insulted her intelligence ", so don't insult ours with that false, cheap, remark ) I said nothing insulting. I did however state fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 I'll explain again and perhaps with more detail. Most of the time when ratings (which are percentages) or viewers or households are quoted for a TV show, it is the number of viewers to the average minute of a program. Every minute in the program has a "number of viewers" estimate to it. But, the number quoted is the average of all the minutes. If you are watching a show for a minute, you can count as a viewer for that minute, but you don't count as a viewer to any of the other minutes. If you are watching every minute of the show, you count as a viewer in every minute of the show. If, somehow, you had a show that was only 5 minutes long, the calculation would go like this: Minute 1: 480,000 viewers Minute 2: 495,000 viewers Minute 3: 505,000 viewers Minute 4: 520,000 viewers Minute 5: 500,000 viewers Average: 500,000 viewers The average is what is quoted as the number of viewers to the program. The technical term for it if you saw the raw Nielsen report is "average audience". "AA" for short. Almost all the time that people are talking about ratings or viewing to TV shows it is the average audience of the show. On rare occasions, networks may do a trick in their press releases of quoting the cumulative audience. The cumulative audience would be a measure of the total number of people who watched for any period of time with the minimum being a minute. That's usually a larger number of people than the average audience because the people who watched for just a few minutes get counted equally with those who watched longer. Both DCI and myself quoted the average audience, not the cumulative audience. If that's not clear, let me know what more I can explain. (As an aside, this measurement has been complicated by DVR's. When people watch later and fast forward through the commercials or the boring parts, they don't count as watching the minutes they are fast forwarding through. This lowers the overall average viewers to the show. You would only count for the minutes you watch and they average all minutes) awesome to know, thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) I bet most of the people who tuned into the DCI streaming only watched part of the shows. I know I did. Sometimes I would tune in toward the end because I was out or something and just skim through, watching pieces of each show until the stream would turn off. Out of a 6-hour competition, I may have only watched an hour. Yes, even out of the 4,500 pay per viewers for Finals, its reasonable to assume a segment subscribed just to watch their Son, Daughter, Grandchild in the telecast as , for one reason or another, they were not going to be able to make it out to Indy. The fact that this segment could probably care less about the other 11 Corps shows is irrelevant. They are counted as viewers by DCI the same way as those that watched the entire 12 Corps shows in its entirety. So when DCI accurately states in their press release this week that they had 4,500 pay per VIEWERS for the 2015 Finals broadcast, thats the correct number of " viewers" they had, irrespective of these viewers levels of interest as viewers, or the time they spent watching the entire broadcast. Edited August 27, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yes, even out of the 4,500 pay per viewers for Finals, its reasonable to assume a segment subscribed just to watch their Son, Daughter, Grandchild in the telecast as , for one reason or another, they were not going to be able to make it out to Indy. The fact that this segment could probably care less about the other 11 Corps shows is irrelevant. They are counted as viewers by DCI the same way as those that watched the entire 12 Corps shows in its entirety. So when DCI accurately states in their press release this week that they had 4,500 pay per VIEWERS for the 2015 Finals broadcast, thats the correct number of " viewers" they had, irrespective of these viewers levels of interest as viewers, or the time they spent watching the entire broadcast. and even better for DCI, they made money on these viewers, as opposed to losing money on ESPN 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACTSC Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yes, even out of the 4,500 pay per viewers for Finals, its reasonable to assume a segment subscribed just to watch their Son, Daughter, Grandchild in the telecast as , for one reason or another, they were not going to be able to make it out to Indy. The fact that this segment could probably care less about the other 11 Corps shows is irrelevant. They are counted as viewers by DCI the same way as those that watched the entire 12 Corps shows in its entirety. So when DCI accurately states in their press release this week that they had 4,500 pay per VIEWERS for the 2015 Finals broadcast, thats the correct number of " viewers" they had, irrespective of these viewers levels of interest as viewers, or the time they spent watching the entire broadcast.Actually, there may have been many more watching. I know people who purchased the feed and then had a house full over to watch. Also many band programs filled up their band rooms with students to watch. So the overall number of viewers is probably considerably higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Actually, there may have been many more watching. I know people who purchased the feed and then had a house full over to watch. Also many band programs filled up their band rooms with students to watch. So the overall number of viewers is probably considerably higher. well to that end there were 7 people in my house, if you count me as the 4500, that makes it 4506 viewers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) Actually, there may have been many more watching. I know people who purchased the feed and then had a house full over to watch. Also many band programs filled up their band rooms with students to watch. So the overall number of viewers is probably considerably higher. Perhaps... along the same lines..... when DCI's press release was excitingly pleased to announce in 2007 that " 300,000 households " watched the 2007 Finals broadcast on ESPN , its likewise true that these "households " more than likely had more than 1 watching the Finals Telecast in their household. So the 2007 DCI figure of " 300,000 " was probably closer to the half a million viewer numbers that watched the 2007 DCI Finals.( as barigirl78 pointed out ) Edited August 27, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.