To CUME or not to CUME…
TVNewser posts a set of CUME numbers and then says they’re not used for sales purposes. Well if they’re not used for sales purposes why are they being posted? Ratings are there for sales purposes, not as a talking point or programming tool.
But then later on he has someone saying they’re not just a talking point. How so? In what way? We aren’t told.
Who cares if it is or isn’t used for sales purposes? Maybe people just want to know the information.
Comment by Steve — October 3, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Oh and btw you say that “Ratings are there for sales purposes, not as a talking point or programming tool.”
BS.
If they aren’t talking points then why are you posting them at all? Why did you post about F&F beating the Early Show in a few markets? We’re not ad sales agents. We don’t need to know the ratings. So why would you post them?
Comment by Steve — October 3, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Because F&F did beat the Early show.Are FACTS getting in the way of the (TRUTH)?
Comment by SHANE — October 3, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Why did you capitalize the word facts, and why capitalize and put in parenthesis the word truth?
Comment by Steve — October 3, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Are the DVR data used for sales purposes? If so why? I think DVR users are the most worthless viewers for advertisers. Seriously, who doesn’t FF through the commercials? Olby viewers? Plus DVR users might not even watch the program. Double whammy.
Comment by Lurker — October 3, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Because someone gave him the info and he felt obliged to plaster it on the website without questioning it, researching it in any way, or finding out what it’s really used for?
Comment by Alison — October 3, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
If they aren’t talking points then why are you posting them at all? Why did you post about F&F beating the Early Show in a few markets? We’re not ad sales agents. We don’t need to know the ratings. So why would you post them?
That is an eminently fair question and one that has consumed me the past few weeks and not just for the reason you mention (I do think the FnF data is more valid than CUME because the Live data was at least used to sell to advertisers). I don’t have an answer to that question yet.
Comment by Spud — October 3, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Don’t get me wrong Spud I’m not telling you to not post things. In fact I would prefer you post more information, I’m a numbers junkie I like all this stuff. Others here care because they’re of one political persuasion or another, or they’re a fan of one network or another, but I’m not. I want as much information as I can get.
For me, I look at ratings not because I care who gets what, but because it’s interesting to how they get them. I like looking at the difference between the Live and Live + because, I like seeing that CNN gets X amount of viewers daily more than Fox yet Fox gets X amount of average viewers more than CNN. I like trying to figure out why that is.
Comment by Steve — October 3, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Why does FOX news rule.Fox news doesn’t hate the U.S.A period.End of discussion.
Comment by SHANE — October 3, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
steve, spud says what he says to make the fnc people happy. fact: cnn has more eyeballs watching it, it’s just they get the info the want and leave. fnc is for people who want the ‘news’ given in entertainment format. sorry i tune to to a news channel to be informed NOT to be entertained.
Comment by Harry — October 3, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
That’s the problem you drink the cool-aid.What part of 51% of cable news viewers don’t you understand? We rule you don’t.I love the first amendment don’t you?
Comment by SHANE — October 3, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
It’s not that simple as distilling the data down to just having the most eyeballs. What constitutes ratings and what constitutes success is extremely complicated. It involves a range of data, not solely CUME or HUTs or Total Viewers or Demo viewers, but a series of equations that covers all those area. And more…
What bugs me, what genuinely vexes me is that there is no one agreed upon set of data to benchmark success among the networks. Or the advertisers. Or Nielsen. Which is why you have networks touting various sets of numbers, not all of them meshing with each other perfectly all the time. What we get in terms of data is only part of the story. That’s the problem as I see it. The only people who know the whole story are the nets’ research people. And you won’t be hearing from them because it’s not in their interest to reveal the process. And the trades like nice easily digestible numbers which is the antithesis of ratings theory as applied to advertising.
Comment by Spud — October 3, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
steve, spud says what he says to make the fnc people happy.
That’s not fair. Spud does a pretty good job maintaining a balance. I think the thing that obscures that is that a lot of the commentators are like SHANE.
, someone not looking for a honest discussion, someone just blinded by ideology. That’s not Spuds fault.
fact: cnn has more eyeballs watching it, it’s just they get the info the want and leave. fnc is for people who want the ‘news’ given in entertainment format. sorry i tune to to a news channel to be informed NOT to be entertained.
Look their are a lot of reasons to criticize Fox. Unbalanced panels, When did you start beating your wife type questions, the downright fusion of news and opinion, but they’re unfortunately not the only network who has descended into tabloid crap. Take a look at Headline News, the content is absolutely atrocious. Hell even CNN can’t help but cut to O.J. Simpson pressers. Fox may be leading the charge into the much, but the rest are right behind.
Comment by Steve — October 3, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Harry, stop it with the insults. Many of us watch Fox just to get both sides of a story, and many, like myself, probably switch channels the second some tabloid or entertainment story comes on. I do the same while watching CNN or Headline News as well.
And both CNN and HN have many credible news programs. But sadly, MSNBC has basically alienated half of the country with their tactics, by excluding conservative POVs from virtually every program (except for Tucker, and Abrams at times).
Comment by Missy — October 3, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
And when fox news gets 60% of cable news viewers what will you say then?The numbers are the numbers 1+1 is not 3.Some on here seem to think so.WOW!
Comment by SHANE — October 3, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Missy, I agree with your statement about insults but it’s just not Harry.Many people here are pretty quick to hurl insults and some of the FNC viewers are just as guilty as anyone else. I personally can’t understand the intolerance of some here to accept the fact that we don’t all have the same political beliefs, religious beliefs and the same likes and dislikes when it comes to the news channels. There is no right or wrong here. It would make for interesting discussion if it wasn’t for the juvenile name calling and at times vicious insults.
Comment by myview — October 3, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Unvarnished news & opinion right or not?I think some here are very confused.I guess 1+1 is 3.
Comment by SHANE — October 3, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Is Fox News a cussword around here?I think so.Look guys the old media is dead! Within 5 years ABC NBC CBS and others will be out of news business.Some think they already are.
Comment by SHANE — October 3, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Missy, I have a feeling Harry is CNW, ME, etc… Same pattern of whining that you just can’t miss plus on another post I saw a “tell” that I am pretty sure he uses. I am not 100% sure since I don’t have Google toolbar installed right now to search his past posts.
Comment by Lurker — October 3, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
The ‘reach’ figures are a good way for stations to see just how many people tune in for at least 1 minute. These are people who could become part of the ‘regular’ ratings if they find something they like.
By comparison, here in the UK where I am, BBC News 24 is the most popular news channel with around 6.8 million viewers tuned in, compared to Sky News (Fox’s sister station) with about 4.6 million viewers. Fox News? Just 272,000 viewers over the course of the week.
I think the ‘reach’ figures can sometimes be more telling than the straight forward programme numbers.
Comment by Ian Beaumont — October 4, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Ian… are you actually suggesting that somehow we should pay more attention to your overseas ratings, than the ratings here in the states?
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 4, 2007 @ 10:49 am
I didn’t get the impression Ian was suggesting we pay more attention to overseas ratings but simply supplying us with some numbers from the UK. I found it interesting.I always presumed that FNC would not be very popular outside of the US. Would be interested to know what numbers FNC and CNN, CNNI gets elsewhere where they are available.
Comment by myview — October 4, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
#21, No, I was saying that the ‘reach’ or CUME figures tell you something that the individual programme ratings don’t. Daily and Weekly reach numbers would be interesting to view alongside the programme numbers
Comment by Ian Beaumont — October 4, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
Ah… okay… I get it now. I was confoozed.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 4, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
And I thought I was the sensible one. Thanks for setting me starihgt.
Comment by Rocky — May 19, 2011 @ 7:44 pm