Democratic Convention ratings tepid

[brooklynite]

Source: Crain's New York Business

Preliminary national television ratings data from Nielsen Media Research indicate that interest in the first night of the Democratic convention as covered by the three major broadcast networks was tepid, to say the least.

The 10-11 p.m. hour of convention coverage of Michelle Obama’s big night on ABC, CBS and NBC added up to slightly less than 12.5 million viewers combined. NBC scored the largest audience.

It will be later in the day, when cable ratings come in, before it’s clear whether viewers opted to seek out the cable news networks offering blanket coverage, or whether it’s a sign of lower interest in the first night of the Democrats’ doings.

Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/FREE/50506/1040/newsletter01

---

I'm inclined to think the "average" American will only tune in Thursday for Obama's speech.

[mzmolly]

1. I predict that viewers sought out Cable news as suggested?

MSNBC viewer here. :hi:

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

29. yep, me too

[Moondog]

32. Another MSNBC

viewer here.

I did fall asleep watching it, but I live on the east coast and have to get up pretty early in the morning on weekdays.

[llmart]

49. What I watched I watched online......

those people aren't counted in these surveys. Besides, like me, we all know we'll see snippets of it the next day over and over again, or the "highlights" of speeches, so many people don't bother to just sit down in front of the TV and watch the entire thing. I don't because I'm not much of a TV watcher.

This is just another attempt by the corporate owned media to make the Democrats look uninviting. Won't they be surprised when Obama wins?

[EFerrari]

2. Our "news" is so filtered any more, I don't believe the "data"

coming from the corporate media can be trusted. :shrug:

[maseman]

11. The data doesn't come from the corporate media

It comes from Nielsen TV ratings.

[EFerrari]

21. Right. And who are their clients?

I guess I've officially become too cynical to live. lol

[maseman]

33. I understand your cynicism

I work in the ratinhs business. Trust me companies like Arbitron and Nielsen ratings are not biased based on their clients. They have some checks and balances that make it nearly impossible to "fix" any data. Plus they have way too much to loose. There's a company called the MRC (Media Ratings Council) that perform regular audits of data. If Arbitron or Nielsen lost their MRC accredidation they could essentially go out of business.

These ratings you can trust.

[Debi]

3. To keep sane I watched it on C-SPAN!

So I wasn't counted in the ratings.

[maseman]

12. Sure you were

if you were in the sample. Nielsen measures both TV networks and cable networks. Of course if you were not part of the sample then obviously you were not counted. But let's be honest the vast majority of people do not watch C-Span.

[Qutzupalotl]

16. The OP is just about networks.

From the link:

It will be later in the day, when cable ratings come in, before it’s clear whether viewers opted to seek out the cable news networks offering blanket coverage, or whether it’s a sign of lower interest in the first night of the Democrats’ doings.

[Debi]

17. I must have misread this part of the op

"The 10-11 p.m. hour of convention coverage of Michelle Obama’s big night on ABC, CBS and NBC added up to slightly less than 12.5 million viewers combined. NBC scored the largest audience."

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Well, excuse me - I'm watching the convention on C-SPAN, not the MSM

The ratings don't mean shit.

:nuke:

[maseman]

14. Of course they do

Nielsen reported how many people were watching the four networks. They will report the cable news channels later today. Just because you watched on C-Span, just as I did, doesn't mean you were not counted if you were a part of the sample.

[Raven]

5. It goes on too late for many working people. I'm exhausted and won't

watch again until Thursday. I've got Friday off so the lateness on Thursday won't matter.

[Warpy]

8. The Mountain Time thing is problematic

for east coasters, but think how we westerners feel with the stuff on during the dinner hour most years, especially the GOP stuff. Puts us off our feed completely.

[grannie4peace]

6. do they count cspan?

[maseman]

15. Yes

[Debi]

18. Not for this article - it states that cable numbers will come in later n/t

[Warpy]

7. I'm inclined to think you're right about that

and it will be very interesting to see how the ratings for the two conventions stack up.

There might be higher ratings for Hillary and Big Dog, though, since people will have a morbid fascination with the extremely remote possibility they will damn Obama with faint praise.

Most people will tune in for Obama's speech and probably not all of that.

[high density]

9. I watched it online

It was so nice seeing it in HD without graphics or talking heads fucking with it.

[Xipe Totec]

10. Me to

Turned on TV and realized I was not going to be able to her the speeches because of the chittering media, so I turned it off and watched online.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Wait until the Republican numbers get released.

Unfortunately, there will probably be more people from our side bolstering their numbers...

[TreasonousBastard]

19. The networks have been cutting convention coverage...

for years, mainly because fewer people are watching it. Note that two of the three networks actually lost vewers when the convention came on. ABC gained, but only because nobody watches "Samantha Who."

Really, what's to watch if you're not a political junkie? Years ago we had serious floor fights and sometimes hundreds of roll calls before we got a candidate. Now? It's all highly scripted PR and fluffery with no suspense.

[sybylla]

20. And why would you watch vapid spokesmodels when the unadulterated version

is available on C-SPAN?

I would be surprised if the cable ratings were worse.

[ladjf]

22. The TV reporting was so rotten, it's amazing that anyone was watching.

[Imalittleteapot]

23. C-Span and PBS being watched by everyone I know. No more MSM!

[No Elephants]

30. I watched PBS and saw all the speakers, not just the talking heads. It was great.

[CitizenPatriot]

24. nielsens owned by

check out what wiki says:

Nielsen Company, formerly known as VNU and owned by a consortium of private equity firms including Blackstone Group, KKR and Carlyle Group. Its US production operations are located in its Brooker Creek Global Technology and Information Center in Oldsmar, Florida. Its UK operations are based in Oxford.

so then I went to their companies:

blackstone: Among the most prestigious private equity and investment banking firms in the world,The Blackstone Group' (NYSE: BX) is a company that provides private equity, financial advisory, and investment management services. The firm is based in New York City, with offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, Hamburg, Paris, Mumbai, Tokyo and Hong Kong. One of the world's largest private equity firms,<1> it is part of the migration of companies from public to private hands — a total of some US$370 billion in deals in the United States in 2006.

kkr- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (commonly referred to as KKR) is a New York City-based private equity firm that focuses primarily on late-stage leveraged buyouts. It was founded in 1976 by Jerome Kohlberg, Jr., and cousins Henry Kravis and George R. Roberts, all of whom had previously worked together at Bear Stearns.

Carlyle Group: The Carlyle Group is a global private equity investment firm, based in Washington, D.C., with more than $81.1 billion of equity capital under management.<1> The firm operates four fund families, focusing on leveraged buyouts, venture & growth capital, real estate and leveraged finance investments. The firm employs more than 575 investment professionals in 21 countries with several offices in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia; its portfolio companies employ more than 286,000 people worldwide. Carlyle has over 1200 investors in 68 countries.

The firm has employed political figures and notable investors. Some of these figures, such as former US President George H. W. Bush and former US Secretary of State James A. Baker III, have generated controversy stemming from allegations of conflicts of interest.

Trust the Nielsens now?

[AZ Criminal JD]

36. Yet another conspiracy.

This one involving thousands of employees (just like the conspiracy of the poll companies) of all political beliefs to falsify numbers. What a universe people live in.

[CitizenPatriot]

37. what do you mean?

Wow -- I hope I'm reading your post wrong. You're saying that some people live in "what a universe" if they believe these conspiracy theories? I guess since I suggested that, you're saying I live in that universe:-)

I am in the media business and the Nielsens are a joke for many reasons, though the advertisers use them for lack of something better. Yes, there really are political agendas driving these people. Why? Because they lobby for things like consolidating media, like financial legislation, which directly benefit the company of which the Nielsens are a part.

Are you saying thousands of people would not falsify numbers? You really should meet your Department of Justice. They can prove that it not only is possible, but it is done as a course of business and done daily.

I guess you're saying there isn't any agenda with these people, that they don't benefit their other companies or the President who worked for them. We should trust that they don't sway things for their own benefit? That sounds like a much larger conspiracy theory to me, and I find THAT much harder to believe, especially given the way things are run in this country.

The polls ARE biased - it's common knowledge. If you are interested, you can google it to find out how they do the polls. You might find the way they do them enlightening.

And yes, the "liberal media" is a misnomer. Really.

Peace.

[AZ Criminal JD]

39. If the Nielsens were a joke advertisers would not use them

Advertisers are not going to just throw their money down the drain because of a "lack of something better". They or someone would create something better. I don't know what your reference is to the DOJ. As a defense attorney I work with some of them on a irregular basis. What numbers are being falsified by career employees (at least 90%) who are of all political beliefs?

[CitizenPatriot]

43. so you were serious

OK.

well, believe what you want. Frankly, I find your naivte shocking for an attorney and a Democrat, but I'll try to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Nielsens:

You say that they must work and be accurate or why would the advertisers use them? I wish I could stop laughing.

The answer is, they don't work accurately and I don't know why the advertisers use them. Nielson ratings are from the stone age and everyone in the media knows this. There is no better option yet. If you have a solution, by all means, contact the networks ASAP. They would pay dearly for a better system, esp one that would show their ratings were going UP in the 18-35 yr old male audience. Their ratings don't even account for episode downloads or DVR viewing more than 24 hours after a show airs, for example.

snip:

The Nielsens don't work as well as they could for a variety of reasons. Nielsen provides data only to those who pay for it. Nielsen's clients are, for the most part, television networks and the companies who advertise on those networks.

Their numbers come from a tiny sampling of homes. Nielsen gets its numbers from two sources. The first is a little box installed in 5,000 homes across the U.S. Those boxes, when used properly, record what shows are being watched on all televisions in a home and what age range, or 'demographic' the person watching falls into. The second source is thousands more people scattered throughout the U.S. who are asked to fill out a diary of what they watch on television.

In the case of numbers reported from a day or two before, these numbers are extrapolated exclusively from the 5,000 homes with the 'audimeter', which is what Nielsen calls its set-top box. The diaries are only submitted once a week, so those numbers don't come in until later.

Nielsen is making an assumption using a sampling statistic based on 5,000 homes what the approximately 113 million U.S. television-viewing homes are watching. It uses this data to check on every single television show on broadcast television and then breaks viewership for each of these shows by age group.

Unfortunately, when an advertiser looks at Nielsen numbers, they have to make assumptions. For instance, when they look at the demographic of 18-35 year olds, they can't tell how many are college students or high-school dropouts. They can't tell how many are lawyers and how many are dishwashers. This is a very serious flaw in the system that keeps Nielsen ratings form being overly valuable...

The problem is that everyone is complaining about the problem, but no one is offering a solution.

http://www.helium.com/items/990477-how-nielsen-tv-ratings-work
cut
___________

Other problems: In the television world public opinion is not so inclusive in its tabulations, ignoring large segments of the population in favor of simplicity. The people they track don't represent the demographics of the country. So, no, it isn't perfect. When used for the internet, Nielsen collects data with its Nielsen/Netratings Internet Panel software. This causes the same problem as with Alexa, which is that Websites can promote the Nielsen Panel software to its customers with the effect that their numbers look much better.

The companies behind these things have agendas. They lobby congress for the legislation they want. The government and media are deeply in bed with one another, one hand washes the other. There are trillions of dollars at stake. It would be naive to assume they would make those unscientific "assumptions" against their own interests.

DOJ

I would expect that you, as an attorney, would have a better grasp of the DoJ issues than I, so I'm not sure why you aren't familiar with what I was referencing. I used the example of the DoJ to counter your point that large numbers of people couldn't operate under a political basis and falsify numbers. In fact, in the DoJ, large numbers of people can and do band together re an ideology/politics and they did keep it a secret. Odd, since partisanship is prohibited at the DoJ, where a private company does not operate under the same rules.

The attorneys who were fired for refusing to illegally investigate democrats before elections years, for one. There were illegal political hirings of interns based on their politics and religious beliefs. Those are lifetime jobs, so the damage is done and Obama is going to have to deal with a DoJ, whose goals are to advance the agenda of the GOP and the fundies.

The illegal firing of the political appointees (not the interns) for political reasons is another example of how the DoJ operated in a partisan way. You can read the reports done on the investigation of the politicizing of the DoJ -- They're on the govt website. The attorneys who were fired or quit say they were asked to falsify numbers of Democratic voter fraud (they couldn't find any instance of it and their "boss" wasn't too happy with that). They were asked to investigate people illegally and manufacture evidence. Many of them fired for not doing it. They ask the question that if they were fired for refusing to go along with these illegal requests, is it reasonable to assume the attorneys who are still there have been going along with this agenda? There are investigations going on all around the country involved in this scandal.

I put a lot of stake in the word of people who risk their careers and their lives to come forward. I also put a lot of stake in Fine's investigations, and he is a Republican who still cares about our government. Google Monica Goodling.

I bothered to reply out of consideration, but I have no interest in duking this out, so if that is your goal, please don't bother replying. I want to watch Hillary. Have a good night.

[kmac3]

25. Convention ratings = more lies and biased information . . .

The ratings will be biased as well . . . you can't get truth on MSM.

If you want straight coverage which allows you to make your own determination of whether it is accomplishing the task required. I started out on PBS which used to be a pretty good source of straight news but they have slowly bent under pressure to the Repubs (sadly).
They had David Brooks on interjecting his views as the speakers proceeded . . . made you want to puke:puke:

Tonight I'll start on C-Span!

[CubicleGuy]

26. Conventions used to have an actual purpose

In the good old days, political conventions actually served a purpose beyond that of just being a mere campaign photo op. Decisions were made. Directions were chosen.

Now it's just a big, pre-scripted "let's cheer on the good guys" event (Karl Rove couldn't be more proud, most likely) and everybody knows it. No wonder nobody watches.

[TomInTib]

27. The timing sucked, right on the heels of the Olympics.

One televised marathon after another is not conducive to good ratings.

Personally, I am suffering television fatigue big-time. I doubt I will watch any of it tonight, as it is cutting into Guitar Time.

[Hardrada]

40. I liked the Olympics better.

Because every last minute wasn't scripted and (except for Ted Kennedy) the difficulty level is minimal for each event.

[TomInTib]

41. Same here.

I am writing in Jim Thorpe.

[Hardrada]

42. Great choice!

[kirby]

28. If people are like me...

Who cares about the convention. I'm tired of all the talk/words. I want action! Elect Obama and lets get to work. All the feel-good blither/blather means nothing if it is not acted upon.

[tama]

31. Good

Why should any real democrat (with a small d) support that feast of blatant show of corporate corruption in the Pepsi Arena, open crime protected from the citizens by army of police paid by wealth robbed from the oppressed citizens, millions and millions.

As for voting Obama with a noseclip or not voting att all (or third party candidate) - let's just say I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

[RayOfHope]

34. I watched Dish Network's coverage. They have a special channel, no commericals or talking heads. n/t

[kirby]

35. So does C-SPAN... n/t

[Plausible]

47. Me, too on Dish Network

I love that they are playing the convention gavel to gavel with no interruptions and, best of all, no talking heads trying to tell viewers what to think and believe.

Thank you Dish Network :)

[Demonaut]

38. I might be there for the speech

if my brother comes thru with tickets

[angstlessk]

44. I no longer watch regular teevee...look at the line up??? 1/4 of a brain needed

to watch those couch potato(e) shows...wow, I am truly amazed at some of those new shows...the cheaper they are to make the better the networks like them, never mind the audience! :grr:

[YvonneCa]

45. C-Span ratings, webcast #'s...

...what about those?

My prediction... this will be the spin..."Low interest in the conventions so we may as well not cover them."

Problem is, they don't 'cover' them now...they just sit and talk with little coverage of what goes on inside.

Watch C-Span.:)

[qwlauren35]

46. No, I don't think so.

I think there are more Democrats watching this year - they are more invested. Across the country, Democrats have taken a meaningful part in the primaries. In every single state in the nation. And I'd bet that a LOT of them want to see what happens this week. The media has certainly been hyping it.

So frankly, I'm fairly sure that when the cable data comes in, we'll see more than a "tepid" response.

Keep in mind that Monday Night Football is on cable now. I have no doubt that cable subscriptions around the country jumped mile high after that announcement. And once you have cable, CBS, NBC and ABC become a small subset of viewer options.

Frankly, I HATE cable on principle. I am furious that TV is no longer free - there are parts of the country where the reception is too poor for people to be able to watch network TV.

But I admit, I was watching CSPAN last night. And listening to all of the truly crazy callers after MO's speech, I'd say I wasn't alone.

[JaneQPublic]

48. Ha! I didn't even know the network channels were carrying it!

I was switching between C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, and PBS.

And I imagine most Repukes were watching on Faux News.