2024 TV and Streaming Ratings Discussion

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Nope

neither will pvl or the tv networks

ive been posting updates from someone else which shows nrl leading by close to ten million

afl ratings are a joke

Are you available to negotiate the next TV deal?

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

I've noticed a huge jump in.number's on NRL YouTube videos for match highlights.

When I started watching them 5 years ago games would have 3k views now they have 100k+ views.

Is this because youtube now count view's differently? Or has the audience grown by that much ?

They use Reach now, you only have to watch for one second.

 

[taste2taste]

They use Reach now, you only have to watch for one second.

So when you're scrolling through YouTube and the thumbnail starts auto playing that's now counted as a view ?

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

So when you're scrolling through YouTube and the thumbnail starts auto playing that's now counted as a view ?

I was joking mate.

 

[taste2taste]

I was joking mate.

There needs to be a sarcasm emoji lol

I'm assuming that's why NRL youtube game highlights have had a 10000% jump in views over the past 5 years.

Auto play thumbnails must be counting as a view.

 

[The_Wookie]

So when you're scrolling through YouTube and the thumbnail starts auto playing that's now counted as a view ?

A youtube viewer is counted after 30 seconds.

Its literally one of the stated reasons Reach was made the standard.

 

[Canard]

The ratings tables on media websites are not posts from a random on Twitter. This is official data, copyright OzTAM and Regional TAM 2024. Previously ordered by Average, now ordered by Reach.


Advertisers are human. They make value judgements. Their decisions can be influenced by perception and preference. There is a bottom line but they are not completely objective. Nor are they the fount of all wisdom.

English RL fans are routinely bombarded with RU-themed ads. Even though these are more likely to turn us against the advertised product. It happens because agencies in London 1) think they're sending "Rugby" content to "Rugby" fans, and 2) are stuffed full of Union supporters keen to promote their favourite sport.

When Poms visit the Fox League site why are we faced with big ads down both sides of the page inviting us to "Stream AFL overseas"?

Yes, advertisers are human and are fallible, but that doesn't really matter, what they are willing to spend money on, or what metric they value is.

You also don't seem to understand how Google ads work.

 

[Billythekid]

There needs to be a sarcasm emoji lol

I'm assuming that's why NRL youtube game highlights have had a 10000% jump in views over the past 5 years.

Auto play thumbnails must be counting as a view.

I think it’s more been normalised and digital content pushed a little more by the NRL. I don’t think anything has really changed in how YouTube counts views in that time.

A youtube viewer is counted after 30 seconds.

Its literally one of the stated reasons Reach was made the standard.

Pretty different products though. Also YouTube generally shows an ad when you first start a video so views have more correlation with how many ads a person is likely to see than reach.

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

A youtube viewer is counted after 30 seconds.

Its literally one of the stated reasons Reach was made the standard.

Pretty different products though. Also YouTube generally shows an ad when you first start a video so views have more correlation with how many ads a person is likely to see than reach.

So in the case of YouTube calculating Reach after such a short time frame is certainly justified if you have it ( the ads) first up before you watch their video, i.e. captive audience, bit of a stretch though extending that to television where there`s every chance that either viewers don`t stick around long enough for the ads or flick channels as soon as ads appear.
That Wharbuton bloke must be very persuasive, no wonder V`landys wants him on the board

 

[Billythekid]

I’m no expert so I’m not sure if advertisers feel the same way. Reach to me seems mostly worthless with more traditional ways of viewing content. I’m not saying it’s totally irrelevant (it does generally give you an idea of how many total people you can reach) but for the most part average seems far more important.

With things like YouTube/tiktok/instagram etc I can see why total views can be more relevant. The way people consume the content is very different as is the way ads are shown.

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

Using this ranking, MAFS 2024 debut had a 2.451 million total reach, while Idol had 1.784 million and Survivor 1.126 million.

In comparison, in 2023, MAFS debuted to 840,000 metro viewers and in 2022 it’s first episode lured 869,000 viewers.

In 2023, the Idol reboot had 413,000 metro viewers.

“It’s remarkable how last year’s flop Australian Idol is suddenly a runaway success for Seven,” another insider said.

“MAFS is the number one show on TV, and that’s one thing the new ratings system doesn’t change.

“But for other shows, you have to look deeper to get the real story.

This just about says it all.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Yes, advertisers are human and are fallible, but that doesn't really matter, what they are willing to spend money on, or what metric they value is.

You also don't seem to understand how Google ads work.

Perfectly true I'm not conversant with the minutiae of algorithms. However, I know that when I see ads for RU or AFL, it's not the result of an entirely random process. Someone, somewhere down the line, made a programming decision based on their perception of how popular or prestigious those sports are. The method of calculating and ranking ratings data is one of the factors affecting those perceptions.

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

Perfectly true I'm not conversant with the minutiae of algorithms. However, I know that when I see ads for RU or AFL, it's not the result of an entirely random process. Someone, somewhere down the line, made a programming decision based on their perception of how popular or prestigious those sports are. The method of calculating and ranking ratings data is one of the factors affecting those perceptions.

More likely algorithm sees person viewing a lot of on-line sport, in this case Rugby League, but that is irrelevant, rugby union and fumbleball pay the internet company to target you because you`re seen as a prime candidate for someone who might be interested in their product.
Interesting because I get targeted by a lot of union articles but no fumbleball articles, I wonder whether this is because I do (very rarely I might add) open a union article, I never open any fumbleball stories because I don`t have the slightest interest in that sport, hence they have given up on me.

 

[Canard]

Perfectly true I'm not conversant with the minutiae of algorithms. However, I know that when I see ads for RU or AFL, it's not the result of an entirely random process. Someone, somewhere down the line, made a programming decision based on their perception of how popular or prestigious those sports are. The method of calculating and ranking ratings data is one of the factors affecting those perceptions.

It's entirely based on your search history, rightly or wrongly, and nothing to do with the website creator.

You can "train it" by clicking on the ads and saying not appropriate or not interested.

But I'd recommend an ad blocker.

 

[docbrown]

While an overhaul of the Australian ratings system has been deemed necessary by most in the TV industry, many are branding the new method as “confusing,” “misleading,” “inflated” and “skewed in favour of Seven Network”.

In what was the biggest shake-up in two decades, in February the TV ratings firm OzTAM implemented the VOZ Total TV audience model and began prioritising total viewership across all cities — including streaming numbers — as opposed to linear numbers across the five metro cities.

Critics claim the new method is mainly benefiting Seven.

“Seven pushed for this new ratings system because they knew they’d come out looking better than Nine,” one TV insider told Saturday Confidential.

“At the time they argued that it makes all free-to-air TV look better so they convinced Nine and Ten to come along for the ride.

“Many people in the industry think the figures are a joke.

“The fact is, Nine is killing it in 2024. They’ve had their strongest first quarter ever, but you wouldn’t know it from the new ratings numbers.”

The new ratings system has resulted in yet another stoush between Nine and Seven about who is the number one network.

Two weeks ago, Seven just stopped short of claiming Total TV commercial share. Nine yesterday claimed pole position.

“Our news programs — across breakfast, afternoons and evenings — are overwhelmingly beating their opposition in Australia’s three largest markets of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (where the vast majority of advertising dollars are spent),” a Nine spokesman said.

In the new ratings system, there’s the option to determine “Total TV National Reach”, which shows data from viewers who watched at least one minute of a program, or 15 seconds online.

Using this ranking, MAFS 2024 debut had a 2.451 million total reach, while Idol had 1.784 million and Survivor 1.126 million.

In comparison, in 2023, MAFS debuted to 840,000 metro viewers and in 2022 it’s first episode lured 869,000 viewers.

In 2023, the Idol reboot had 413,000 metro viewers.

“It’s remarkable how last year’s flop Australian Idol is suddenly a runaway success for Seven,” another insider said.

“MAFS is the number one show on TV, and that’s one thing the new ratings system doesn’t change.

“But for other shows, you have to look deeper to get the real story.

“Nine News is winning Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane this year.

“That’s where the crucial advertising dollars are.

“Those are the numbers media buyers care about.

“But Seven wins the new ratings system thanks to Perth and regional markets.”

While media advertising buyers, TV executives and media writers agree the previous system was not reflecting the way we watch TV, thanks to live streaming and more people ditching aerial connections, many claim the new way of distributing the data is experiencing teething problems.

As a result, media agencies are still 12 months away from adopting the new ratings system.

“The average is a better reflection of actual audience,” one advertising source said.

“But the reach is a joke and ridiculous.

“Advertisers still just care about east coast numbers — Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and that’s where Nine is dominant.”

According to TV Tonight’s David Knox, it is Seven CEO James Warburton who “championed” overhauling the ratings.

“And it may well be his legacy gift to the industry,” he said.

“There are some clashing interests however, with Seven, having acquired the Prime network, focused on national results, and Nine focused on their five city markets.

“The new reporting to media also snubs separate multichannel results, city-by-city results and Foxtel numbers, which is not great for transparency.

“If you’re not talking about ratings performance, for better or worse, the risk is people will care less about their shows and continue to migrate to streaming giants.

“Be careful what you wish for.”
Media analyst Steve Allen asked for critics to be patient with the new system.

“There have been quite a few delays with VOS because nowhere in the world has this been done,” Mr Allen said.

“It has taken a significant amount of work to ensure there wasn’t duplication, for example.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/why-new-tv-ratings-system-has-been-slammed-as-a-joke/news-story/4431588be39c996754d188d2fac1d4ec

That’s a good article that gets to the heart of the issue. Free to air networks view ratings as propaganda and they will do everything they can – even manipulating the data – to maintain the perception of relevancy because their advertising revenues depend upon it. Everyone knows that Seven orchestrated the push for the new system because they knew they’d come off looking the best under it. But Nine & Ten went along with it because they’re desperate to still seem significant.

It also shows you how their propaganda changes. Remember from 7 network heads 15 years ago, the line was always ‘regionals don’t matter, only the 5 metros matter’ even though back then places like regional Northern NSW were still basically like an extra metro in terms of ad spends. But then they buy Prime and the line now is ‘national viewership is the only thing that matters’ because now we’re making advertising dollars from those regional markets. Those regional people didn’t suddenly pop out of nowhere. They always existed. It’s just that 7 didn’t care before. And sycophants not inside the industry with their own agendas just repeat whatever propaganda they choose to boost their own causes.

Regional viewers mattered. They always mattered. There’s a million people in the Hunter & Illawarra regions alone who are watching. It’s just whether or not they matter to a specific network executive.

As for Reach, the article is correct that media agencies think it’s a joke and are treating it with a lot of skepticism. They’ll continue to run their campaigns based on averages because a one minute sample base does not tell us about repeated spot viewership, and I’ll tell you now that is a hell of a lot more important than measuring channel changers. At a minimum you need the 15 minute or 30 minute panels to see that an ad has been watched multiple times.

There’s also a lot of doubt about the VOZ online numbers. Whereas the Youtube algorithm will discount viewers who reclick repeatedly to boost their view count, there’s a lack of clarification about whether the VOZ is accurately doing that in theirs. For example, say you’re watching MAFS (god knows why) and you drop out or leave because you go out somewhere and reconnect even just one minute later, well you’re now counted in the reach twice as two separate viewers. Even though you are the same person, just watching the same content but at a different point in the stream.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

It's entirely based on your search history, rightly or wrongly, and nothing to do with the website creator.

Not sure what I've done to deserve all the Stream AFL ads.

Would be interesting to find out whether visitors to Fox Fumble get ads for NRL at the same unforgiving rate.

 

[Iamback]

I’m no expert so I’m not sure if advertisers feel the same way. Reach to me seems mostly worthless with more traditional ways of viewing content. I’m not saying it’s totally irrelevant (it does generally give you an idea of how many total people you can reach) but for the most part average seems far more important.

With things like YouTube/tiktok/instagram etc I can see why total views can be more relevant. The way people consume the content is very different as is the way ads are shown.

For me if you can sit on the remote and be counted a viewer before you can change it... the system is flawed.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

rugby union and fumbleball pay the internet company to target you because you`re seen as a prime candidate for someone who might be interested in their product.

Which to a considerable extent must be based on speculative perception.

Precisely the sort of speculative perception that FTA broadcasters are trying to broaden among would-be advertisers by adopting Reach as the standard measurement of viewership.

 

[Perth Red]

In a day and age where fta is losing large audience share to streaming you can see why they would have been keen to change it to something that makes them look like they have a lot more viewers than they actually have.
Lies, damn lies and statistics lol

 

[The_Wookie]

That’s a good article that gets to the heart of the issue. Free to air networks view ratings as propaganda and they will do everything they can – even manipulating the data – to maintain the perception of relevancy because their advertising revenues depend upon it. Everyone knows that Seven orchestrated the push for the new system because they knew they’d come off looking the best under it. But Nine & Ten went along with it because they’re desperate to still seem significant.

It also shows you how their propaganda changes. Remember from 7 network heads 15 years ago, the line was always ‘regionals don’t matter, only the 5 metros matter’ even though back then places like regional Northern NSW were still basically like an extra metro in terms of ad spends. But then they buy Prime and the line now is ‘national viewership is the only thing that matters’ because now we’re making advertising dollars from those regional markets. Those regional people didn’t suddenly pop out of nowhere. They always existed. It’s just that 7 didn’t care before. And sycophants not inside the industry with their own agendas just repeat whatever propaganda they choose to boost their own causes.

Regional viewers mattered. They always mattered. There’s a million people in the Hunter & Illawarra regions alone who are watching. It’s just whether or not they matter to a specific network executive.

As for Reach, the article is correct that media agencies think it’s a joke and are treating it with a lot of skepticism. They’ll continue to run their campaigns based on averages because a one minute sample base does not tell us about repeated spot viewership, and I’ll tell you now that is a hell of a lot more important than measuring channel changers. At a minimum you need the 15 minute or 30 minute panels to see that an ad has been watched multiple times.

There’s also a lot of doubt about the VOZ online numbers. Whereas the Youtube algorithm will discount viewers who reclick repeatedly to boost their view count, there’s a lack of clarification about whether the VOZ is accurately doing that in theirs. For example, say you’re watching MAFS (god knows why) and you drop out or leave because you go out somewhere and reconnect even just one minute later, well you’re now counted in the reach twice as two separate viewers. Even though you are the same person, just watching the same content but at a different point in the stream.

If they want to give us a bigger number, they can always give us the largest number in the quarter hour data. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than this minute crap.

Also even FOX doubts Oztams collection methods believing they understate Fox streaming by 40%.