Subject: Re: Unfair TV Ratings - Ron Reagan show (TP/30Something)
From: ferguson@bgsuvax.UUCP (Douglas Ferguson)
Date: 1991-08-29, 20:47
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.tv.twin-peaks

From article <1991Aug29.214356.2037@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, by phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre):

>
> So would someone who really knows what he's talking about like to comment
> on the effectiveness of Nielsen's techniques?
>

Well, I'll try. (Especially because you are one of the few people who
know how to correctly spell Nielsen.)

I was Program Director for an NBC affiliate for 11 years. We were measured
4 times a year by Nielsen and also by Arbitron. Two companies...two
different random samples...both VERY small random samples. Yet, the
ratings and shares were very similar. Consistently, with only rare
exceptions.

I've offered this "two companies get the same measurement with different
small samples" argument before on this newsgroup. I find it compelling.
Here's another compelling argument: Why would advertisers spend $140
billion a year to sell their wares, and allow shoddy research? Simple.
They don't. Their statisticians check and verify Nielsen and Arbitron
and Simmons and Birch and the rest.

Sad but true: The ratings, though imperfect, are generally accurate.

Even sadder: Whiny fans of oddball shows like Twin Peaks can't seem
to understand that "normal TV viewers" don't want oddball shows.
These "normal" viewers number in the tens of millions: They want
sappy sitcoms and predictable shoot-em-ups.

If you don't enjoy most of what's on American TV, it's because you're
not part of the normal society that likes garish cars, greasy fast food,
and Tony Danza.

But don't kill the messenger. Nielsen just calls 'em as it sees 'em.


-- 
Dr. Douglas Ferguson, BGSU, Bowling Green, Ohio (419) 372-6007
Internet: ferguson@andy.bgsu.edu * Opinions expressed are not
Bitnet: ferguson@bgsuopie * those of BGSU. Trust me !