And the bad news for Hockey in the US continues

[Asher]

Sometimes it hurts people for me to be so right so often. But I say, "**** it", and I stick to my guns.

[-Jrabbit]

Yeah yeah, you're a big, scary guy and we tremble before you.

You'd have a lot more credibility, however, if you ever had the balls to admit it when you are wrong -- or for that matter, when someone else makes a valid point.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
Were people out of their league when they called out Ming's numbers on Heroes being doomed?

I will admit I was wrong on Heros... I looked at the ratings from the rerun night, and NOT the original airing.

I screwed up... no big deal. Unklike some people, I admit when I'm wrong

Hockey on TV in the US just sucks. That's a fact. NBC could make more money running just about anything else than hockey. They are lossing tons of money by running Hockey vs far more profitable programming. Hell, the Stanley Cup was beat out by College Beach Volleyball. They were running NASCAR on Saturday and Sunday afternoons in October and November and getting ratings around 4.5. Other Saturday afternoons, they were running College Football and getting ratings even better than that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Yeah yeah, you're a big, scary guy and we tremble before you.

You'd have a lot more credibility, however, if you ever had the balls to admit it when you are wrong -- or for that matter, when someone else makes a valid point.

I'm not wrong, though...so why would I admit that?

Hockey on TV in the US just sucks. That's a fact. NBC could make more money running just about anything else than hockey.

So, prove it. You know better than NBC about how they run their network.

What shows can NBC air in the 1pm-4pm timeslot on Saturday afternoon to get higher ratings historically?

I also see you ignore the fact that ratings were up.

[-Jrabbit]

NBC reports Sunday's Red Wings-Avalanche game drew 1.3 in the national overnight ratings. That's low, but it's still an 8% increase over last season.

This is a press release, not a news story.

Yeah, ratings numbers are up.
To 1.3.
An 8% increase over the previous year.

So how does that translate? Let's see...
1.3 / 1.2 = 108.33%
So they went up a tenth of a point. That's background noise, dude.
At that rate, it would be 2012 before they hit 2.0... oboy!

When your raw numbers are that bad, it's a pretty easy spin to project the appearance of progress. Reporting that "ratings were up 0.1 points" would be more honest. Just less likely to fuel the enthusiasm of fanboys like you.

[Asher]

fanboys?

I'm not fond of NBC nor its production of hockey. Nor am I fond of the American hockey market in general. Nothing would make me happier than the teams in crap, nothing markets like Chicago to move north of the border.

But the simple fact is, Ming is wrong (again). If NBC had stuff they could put on to reliably attract bigger audiences, they would.

[Sava]

IIRC, 1 point = 1 million households? Is that correct?

So 0.1 point = 100,000 households.

So the growth from last year didn't even keep up with population growth. That's a decline as far as I'm concerned.

[Asher]

1 point = 1,114,000 households, so you're reasonably close.

Except you fail to understand the fundamental concept of the rating.

A point is a single percentage of the households with TVs watching. So 1.2 to 1.3 is an increase any way you want to paint it...

[-Jrabbit]

A point is a single percentage of the households with TVs watching.

No, Asher, that is incorrect.

A rating "point" is a hard number, not a percentage. One point translates to roughly equivalent to 1% of American TV households. It tells you how many households were watching. Again, a hard number.

A rating "share" is the percentage of active viewers tuned to a given program. Shares for all time periods round to 100%, ragardless of the number of points involved.

If all TVs in the use were in use for a given program, the "rating" and "share" numbers would be identical.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
No, Asher, that is incorrect.

A rating "point" is a hard number, not a percentage. One point translates to roughly equivalent to 1% of American TV households. It tells you how many households were watching. Again, a hard number.

A rating "share" is the percentage of active viewers tuned to a given program. Shares for all time periods round to 100%, ragardless of the number of points involved.

If all TVs in the use were in use for a given program, the "rating" and "share" numbers would be identical.

It's funny, 'cause you're incorrect.

A ratings point is exactly equal to 1% of estimated US households. While a point is obviously a "hard number", it corresponds to a percentage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings

Nielsen Television Ratings are reported by ranking the percentage for each show of all viewers watching television at a given time. As of September 2006, there are an estimated 111.4 million television households in the USA. A single national ratings point represents 1%, or 1,114,000 households for the 2006-07 season. Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to a specific program. These numbers are usually reported as (ratings points/share). For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning 9.2%, or 10,138,400 households on average were tuned in at any given moment. Additionally, 15% of all televisions in use at the time were tuned into this program. Nielsen re-estimates the number of households each August for the upcoming television season.

[Asher]

I'll help you connect the dots.

1 point = 1% of US households.

Last season's ratings = 1.2 = 1.2% of US households.
This season's ratings = 1.3 = 1.3% of US households.

Now, google and figure out how percentages work.

If the population is growing, it is reasonable to expect the number of households to also grow.

With the number of households growing, even if the ratings stayed static (eg, 1.2 this season), this would correspond to increased viewership.

Alas, the ratings rose to 1.3, indicating more people watched than the rise in households.

See how fun simple math is! =)

[-Jrabbit]

NOTE: This is a response to Post #55, not the condescending "how percentages work" drivel of #56)

And that's exactly what I stated.

In the industry, Points are used to generate how many people are watching a given program. Of course, since population is a moving target, the value of a ratings point is an annual variable - an estimate that is only correct once a year. But technically, it's a constant, NOT a percentage. The ratings point is a multiplier (based on the annual estimate of 1% of TV households) used to generate total audience numbers.

Share is used to measure relative popularity of programs within a given time period. It IS a percentage.

A Point = 1.14 million households. That is NOT a percentage. A percentage (of total estimate TV households) is simply used to generate the current meaning of a Point. But Points are not, in themselves, a percentage.

This is a great example of your inability to accept correction. You are needy and pathetic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
And that's exactly what I stated.

There is a huge difference between "approximately" and "exactly". One that displays your inability to understand a field you pretend to know a bit about.

A Point = 1.14 million households. That is NOT a percentage. A percentage (of total estimate TV households) is simply used to generate the current meaning of a Point. But Points are not, in themselves, a percentage.

This is a great example of your inability to accept correction. You are needy and pathetic.

Are you for real? Seriously?

This is amazing...

Read my "condescending" post, because you clearly don't get it yet.

A point is, by definition, 1% of estimate US households.

Now let's revisit this gem:

A Point = 1.14 million households. That is NOT a percentage.

Now, google the term "transitivity'.

Apply it.

[Asher]

I swear to God, if anybody with a brain and/or a real degree enters advertising the industry is theirs for the taking.

[-Jrabbit]

Yes folks, give him a Wiki search and he's an expert...