|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Jan 8, 2012 19:14:29 GMT -5
Now, I don't know too much about Nielsen ratings, but as I understand them, they go something like this:
400 Nielsen homes watched Raw, so that means approximately 4,000,000 people watched (I don't know the actual figures or how many Nielsen homes = regular homes, so I'm just throwing out numbers).
Now if that's the case, it's really just a guestimation using a smaller figure to get an approximation of the actual figure. So, would WWE be wrong to look at Twitter follows when it comes to determining the popularity of their stars?
I mean, if Zack Ryder has 448,000 twitter followers and The Miz has 447,000, why can't the WWE look at that and think, well that means Ryder has approximately 2,400,000 fans and Miz only has 2,000,000, so Ryder's more popular, push him.
It's the same basic premise, isn't it?
If I'm wrong, please educate me. But it just seems like the Nielsen system is so terrible it could really be replaced by anything that takes a sub-section of the population, polls it and then multiplies that number by X. Twitter, Facebook and Myspace included.
|
|
|
|
Post by frogsplash45 on Jan 8, 2012 19:17:37 GMT -5
Because it's not a very accurate measurement.
Faces might have a tendency to have more followers than heels. Certain superstars might promote their Twitter accounts more actively than others. It doesn't necessarily represent viewership.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Jan 8, 2012 19:25:54 GMT -5
Because it's not a very accurate measurement. Faces might have a tendency to have more followers than heels. Certain superstars might promote their Twitter accounts more actively than others. It doesn't necessarily represent viewership. Very well said |
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on Jan 8, 2012 19:36:00 GMT -5
Just because you follow someone doesn't mean you watch their show.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Jan 8, 2012 19:42:51 GMT -5
There was a report recently about the number of people who Tweeted while they watched RAW. From what I recall the number was about 100,000 or so.
So I highly doubt the Twitter Followers would make much difference in the rating at all whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jan 8, 2012 19:54:58 GMT -5
There was a report recently about the number of people who Tweeted while they watched RAW. From what I recall the number was about 100,000 or so. So I highly doubt the Twitter Followers would make much difference in the rating at all whatsoever. Obviously the Twitter crowd doesn't represent 100% of the WWE fanbase, but neither do Nielson homes. He's saying that Twitter may be a more accurate way to measure wrestler's popularity than TV ratings are. I think there's a major flaw in that logic though. Sponsors and network executives are concerned more with ratings, not Twitter. This is why WWE gives a crap about ratings at all. The higher their ratings, the more they can make from advertisements and the more leverage they have with the USA Network. Is it a concept that needs an overhaul? Perhaps. But that's not something that WWE can change. Maybe if the WWE Network becomes an established channel or something, but currently they aren't in any position to influence the core structure of television like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2012 19:58:39 GMT -5
John Cena/Kelly Kelly have more Twitter followers than any other superstar/diva. Maybe WWE should push them some more.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 8, 2012 19:59:58 GMT -5
Zack Ryder's entire gimmick was based off of getting people to follow him on Twitter and buy his merchandise so he should have more followers. That's why it's not accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyromax on Jan 8, 2012 20:04:52 GMT -5
More accurate than those Nielsen boxes. Those are not used on a large enough scale to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Jan 8, 2012 20:04:58 GMT -5
There was a report recently about the number of people who Tweeted while they watched RAW. From what I recall the number was about 100,000 or so. So I highly doubt the Twitter Followers would make much difference in the rating at all whatsoever. Obviously the Twitter crowd doesn't represent 100% of the WWE fanbase, but neither do Nielson homes. He's saying that Twitter may be a more accurate way to measure wrestler's popularity than TV ratings are. Yeah, I'm not saying Twitter's so awesome that WWE SHOULD push people based on it, I'm saying the Nielsen system is as contrived and shitty a system as a Twitter followers system would be. It's just all terrible. In this day and age, the technology that's out there, television is all digital now, cable and satellite companies HAVE the ability to track whose watching what. Why hasn't the ratings system evolved? Cable and satellite companies should track the number of people watching programs. I know they track DVR recordings but only same day watches are used or something like that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility for them to track EVERYTHING that's watched with a minute by minute breakdown at that. I mean, we should be able to see ratings breakdowns these days which consist of stuff like "At the exact moment Michael Cole started screaming annoyingly, 500,000 people changed channels." And it should be EXACT, not "15 Nielsen homes changed channels, so 150,000 approximate people did" because those 15 people may hate wrestling while the 150,000 they're supposed to represent stuck it through for some reason or another. Am I making sense?  |
|
deancubed
Don Corleone
Playing League of Legends
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by deancubed on Jan 9, 2012 0:01:14 GMT -5
The best way to do that is to get everyone off of TV and watching online, then you can track connections, and also what site they are coming from and going to before and after they watch the show. Not that this is likely to ever happen, but there you go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 0:05:49 GMT -5
Twitter followers =/= being good at your job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 0:06:51 GMT -5
Twitter followers =/= being good at your job. Obviously the Twitter crowd doesn't represent 100% of the WWE fanbase, but neither do Nielson homes. He's saying that Twitter may be a more accurate way to measure wrestler's popularity than TV ratings are. Yeah, I'm not saying Twitter's so awesome that WWE SHOULD push people based on it, I'm saying the Nielsen system is as contrived and s***ty a system as a Twitter followers system would be. It's just all terrible. In this day and age, the technology that's out there, television is all digital now, cable and satellite companies HAVE the ability to track whose watching what. Why hasn't the ratings system evolved? Cable and satellite companies should track the number of people watching programs. I know they track DVR recordings but only same day watches are used or something like that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility for them to track EVERYTHING that's watched with a minute by minute breakdown at that. I mean, we should be able to see ratings breakdowns these days which consist of stuff like "At the exact moment Michael Cole started screaming annoyingly, 500,000 people changed channels." And it should be EXACT, not "15 Nielsen homes changed channels, so 150,000 approximate people did" because those 15 people may hate wrestling while the 150,000 they're supposed to represent stuck it through for some reason or another. Am I making sense? I would rather not have the government have access to watch what every single person in the country is watching at any given moment. Not to violate the political rule, I just think that's the reason why we don't have the kind of ratings you're talking about. The Nielsen method is fine, no need to change it, its all for advertisers anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 0:12:55 GMT -5
The best way to do that is to get everyone off of TV and watching online, then you can track connections, and also what site they are coming from and going to before and after they watch the show. Not that this is likely to ever happen, but there you go. I wouldn't say it's unlikely to happen, it is happening already slowly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in 2022 it was mainstream for the general public to watch programming on their computer. Figure in some improvements in networking, cable hardware, and bandwidth (or some new telecommerce format altogether) and even the low end computers and services of the time should have no problem streaming in a quality greater than what high end users experience today. In fact I'd be surprised if it takes anywhere near that long for it to become mainstream. Five years is likely closer to the mark. |
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748 
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Jan 9, 2012 0:53:43 GMT -5
Here's something that strikes me as odd....
For some reason I'd assumed that most of the newer Set-top Boxes (Cable, Satellite, TiVo, Other PDVRs) had some sort of Nielson-like reporting device in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Jan 9, 2012 3:17:34 GMT -5
Here's something that strikes me as odd.... For some reason I'd assumed that most of the newer Set-top Boxes (Cable, Satellite, TiVo, Other PDVRs) had some sort of Nielson-like reporting device in them. This is what I'm talking about. There's no reason these things SHOULDN'T have a reporting device. And for those worried about "privacy," I'm not talking about Obama knowing that Joe Bob in Bumf***, Georgia watched Jerry Springer. Only that the company (not the government, who said government?) should know how many viewers are tuned into a particular show at any given moment. It's just like hit tracking on websites. |
|
