GlasgoJambo Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 So much, if not all, television content is governed by the ratings - eg how many people are watching TV at any particular time. For something so important and nationwide I've never met anyone who has been involved in the ratings process, whether with regards what they watch or the working for whoever it is who studies the figures. How is it done? Anyone know anyone involved? And is it open to corruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsmak Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I want to know this too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 The ratings are done by Broadcasters Audience Research Board (BARB) which is a not for profit organisation funded by the BBC, ITV, CH4, CH5, Sky and an marketing/advertising board. Basically people are selected by research companies like Ipsos Mori (hired by BARB) to represent chunks of 5000 people*, with each demographic, signal area etc represented. *means each person has roughly a 1 in 12-13000 chance of being contacted by the likes of Ipsos Mori about their viewing habits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Imagine if they contacted a bunch of perverts, and it led to figures showing more people watched Red Hot Wives, than Eastenders or Coronation Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheiky Baby Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 So all this '8 million people tuned in last night to (insert generic talent show final pish)' is more than likely, not a close figure at all to how many people actually viewed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buaben Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I got a letter from Sky today to ask to join the Sky Viewer panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 So all this '8 million people tuned in last night to (insert generic talent show final pish)' is more than likely, not a close figure at all to how many people actually viewed it? It's been that way since the early 80's, only actually ever used to calculate the cost of advertising! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I got a letter from Sky today to ask to join the Sky Viewer panel. Sky Viewer panel is a bit different, used by Sky to determine viewing schedules and also gather advertising effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moshy Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Imagine if they contacted a bunch of perverts, and it led to figures showing more people watched Red Hot Wives, than Eastenders or Coronation Street. perverts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgoJambo Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 The ratings are done by Broadcasters Audience Research Board (BARB) which is a not for profit organisation funded by the BBC, ITV, CH4, CH5, Sky and an marketing/advertising board. Basically people are selected by research companies like Ipsos Mori (hired by BARB) to represent chunks of 5000 people*, with each demographic, signal area etc represented. *means each person has roughly a 1 in 12-13000 chance of being contacted by the likes of Ipsos Mori about their viewing habits Cheers Ribble. Do you know how the people chosen register what they're watching? I imagine now it's done with a digital contraption but back in days of yore did they have to fill in a piece of paper each day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Cheers Ribble. Do you know how the people chosen register what they're watching? I imagine now it's done with a digital contraption but back in days of yore did they have to fill in a piece of paper each day? Not sure about the past but now there is a digital recorder that not only records what programmes are watched but each person in the household also has a login button to indicate they are in the room. So they get information like 'for x tv show in an average family of 5 in south east england on a mid level income, 3 out of 5 were watching, aged 37, 41 and 15' etc, they would then use that against census records etc to multiply that average out by the number of 5 person families in that area of similar age and income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Also there are two sets of figures, overnight that shows people watching live and a Combined figure that includes everyone that has watched the programme within 7 days of broadcast via catchup, Iplayer etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 We got picked to do this in the States when we first arrived here (about 5 years ago) by Neilson, who run that kind of thing over here. They just phoned us out of the blue. We did it for two years running, but were late sending it back in and so didn't get asked again. I was kind of glad, as it was a hassle. They paid us 30 dollars the first time, and 10 the second. The money came in the post (in 10-dollar notes!) with the wee sheet you had to fill in. What struck me was, as some of the other posters have suggested, how amateur and potentially unreliable the whole thing was. We had to monitor our TV viewing habits for a week - kids included. In fact, as we don't watch an awful lot of telly, it was mostly kids' programmes and football matches I ended up noting down. The wee ones could never remember properly whether they'd watched Spongebob or Bob the Builder when I was asking them at night, so there was a fair bit of fudging. On top of that, at the time (they may have improved this since) Neilson really hadn't got a handle on the fact that lots of folk now DVR/Tivo/Sky Plus (etc.) their telly and watch it later (even back then, we rarely watched any non-sporting event 'live', for example). They had a teeny wee section on the form for that kind of thing, and it didn't really allow for programmes from previous weeks that you had just got around to watching. It was all done with paper and pen. You posted your results back to them after a week. All in all, I thought the whole process was eye-openingly poor. If they're extrapolating national viewing figures from families like us, I'd suggest taking those figures with a barrowload of salt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 perverts? OK. People like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgoJambo Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 We got picked to do this in the States when we first arrived here (about 5 years ago) by Neilson, who run that kind of thing over here. They just phoned us out of the blue. We did it for two years running, but were late sending it back in and so didn't get asked again. I was kind of glad, as it was a hassle. They paid us 30 dollars the first time, and 10 the second. The money came in the post (in 10-dollar notes!) with the wee sheet you had to fill in. What struck me was, as some of the other posters have suggested, how amateur and potentially unreliable the whole thing was. We had to monitor our TV viewing habits for a week - kids included. In fact, as we don't watch an awful lot of telly, it was mostly kids' programmes and football matches I ended up noting down. The wee ones could never remember properly whether they'd watched Spongebob or Bob the Builder when I was asking them at night, so there was a fair bit of fudging. On top of that, at the time (they may have improved this since) Neilson really hadn't got a handle on the fact that lots of folk now DVR/Tivo/Sky Plus (etc.) their telly and watch it later (even back then, we rarely watched any non-sporting event 'live', for example). They had a teeny wee section on the form for that kind of thing, and it didn't really allow for programmes from previous weeks that you had just got around to watching. It was all done with paper and pen. You posted your results back to them after a week. All in all, I thought the whole process was eye-openingly poor. If they're extrapolating national viewing figures from families like us, I'd suggest taking those figures with a barrowload of salt... Cheers Don, was hoping for an insight like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgoJambo Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 OK. People like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moshy Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 nowt perverted about watching certain categories in my mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 About 3 months ago I had a cold caller at the front door. I must have been in a mellow mood because I didn't just say "not interested" or one of my usual responses. She was from Ipsos Moray, older cat loving woman. She wanted me to take a note of every radio station I listened to for a week, time in 15 min chunks etc. I could do it on a booklet or online. I chose online. Was a doddle as I only ever listen to 3 stations unless the kids are in the car and I am in a good mood. As she was leaving she was giving it thanks for your help blah blah and then she gave me a ?5 for choosing online. Easiest fiver I have ever earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_hmfc Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 If I had a say in that the general public would appear to watch nothing but Only Fools And Horses, broken only by Sky Sports News for ten minutes until they find out if Natalie Sawyer is presenting. *sigh* . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.