XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel
From: your.name@isp.com
"cloud dreamer" wrote in message
news:7fCdnfKUqZsd43_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On 16/11/2010 9:09 AM, Neil Rieck wrote:
> > [...snip...]
> >>
> >> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
> >> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
> >> extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
> >
> > The measurement boxes are expensive so they (Nielson) still support a
> > larger paper diary system which allows people to lie (network bias).
>
> They would statistically lie in equal numbers so the difference would be
> negligible.
>
> So, tell me. What else are they supposed to do???
>
> Until they can start collecting data live from DVRs, what other system
> are they supposed to use???
>
> If they can't rely on people to tell the truth in the diary portion of
> their polling, they have to rely on the meters. If they're that
> expensive, they have to rely on extrapolated data and conclusions.
Meters are no better than diaries. You would have to have a meter attached
to every TV in the house, as well as recording devices and download sites.
You would also have to determine whether anyone is actually watching the TV
or simply tuning in to some "news" show because they think thye should, but
in reality are in another room eating dinner or whatever.
> Your Name seems to think they need to go out there and poll all 115
> million households in the US.
Nope. Try the few billion households, worldwide. Despite what most Americans
think, there are other countries on this planet.
> Not gonna happen till DVRs are widespread enough to make the data
reliable.
Not gonna heppen thanks to the "big brother" conspiracy nutters, and even
then that still isn't a fully reliable option.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
