What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2024 TV and Streaming Ratings Discussion

Chief_Chujo

Chief_Chujo

First Grade
Messages
8,131
From what I've read, reach is a completely useless stat. Advertisers care about effective reach, 1 minute viewers don't count in that column. It's been brought in as a dick measuring PR piece.
 
M

Mother Nature's Son

Juniors
Messages
655
docbrown said:
1 minute reach is useless to advertisers and media buyers because it's people AVOIDING watching ads.
Click to expand...
Look Doc in all fairness, there seems to be a lot assuming that a lot of these reach viewers are only watching one minute, who`s to say it isn`t five or even ten which is probably more realistic.
 
docbrown

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
Mother Nature's Son said:
Look Doc in all fairness, there seems to be a lot assuming that a lot of these reach viewers are only watching one minute, who`s to say it isn`t five or even ten which is probably more realistic.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that. I'm saying that they are people AVOIDING ads, hence why reach is useless for advertisers. 1 minute is the minimum for them to be recorded.

Some will flick over at the ad breaks in the other shows they're watching and may do it only once. Or 5 times. It depends on whether the new content interests them and how invested they are in the original show. For instance, an exciting game = multiple flicks back. Dud game = 1 click and not again.

But if they've invested in the original program, they typically flick back after a minute or two (because they know how long a standard ad break goes). 1 flick = 1-2 minutes. 5 flicks = 5-10 minutes. The best example of this has and always will be the 6pm news. Older viewers especially will flick between coverage on 9 & 7.

However, cyclers are a bit different to ad break retainers who usually change with an intent. Cyclers will scroll through all the channels, so they tend not to come back. Fast past cyclers don't even get recorded in reach - they can watch for as briefly as 1-2 seconds. Then again other reach viewers will be roaming for something to watch whilst channel surfing, watch for 10 minutes to get a gauge on the game and then move on.

The point is there is no singular definition for what a reach viewer actually does.

But what I can tell you is that if they become invested in the outcome of the game, they then start lifting the average. But the fact that there's typically a ratio of 3 to 4 to the average, tends to suggest they're brief viewers and not getting picked up in the 15 minute panels.

Also -- I'll award bonus points to anybody who understands why reach viewers were actually much bigger 20 years ago and why the reach numbers have (and will continue to) decline year on year.
 
Canard

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,609
docbrown said:
No one is saying that. I'm saying that they are people AVOIDING ads, hence why reach is useless for advertisers. 1 minute is the minimum for them to be recorded.

Some will flick over at the ad breaks in the other shows they're watching and may do it only once. Or 5 times. It depends on whether the new content interests them and how invested they are in the original show. For instance, an exciting game = multiple flicks back. Dud game = 1 click and not again.

But if they've invested in the original program, they typically flick back after a minute or two (because they know how long a standard ad break goes). 1 flick = 1-2 minutes. 5 flicks = 5-10 minutes. The best example of this has and always will be the 6pm news. Older viewers especially will flick between coverage on 9 & 7.

However, cyclers are a bit different to ad break retainers who usually change with an intent. Cyclers will scroll through all the channels, so they tend not to come back. Fast past cyclers don't even get recorded in reach - they can watch for as briefly as 1-2 seconds. Then again other reach viewers will be roaming for something to watch whilst channel surfing, watch for 10 minutes to get a gauge on the game and then move on.

The point is there is no singular definition for what a reach viewer actually does.

But what I can tell you is that if they become invested in the outcome of the game, they then start lifting the average. But the fact that there's typically a ratio of 3 to 4 to the average, tends to suggest they're brief viewers and not getting picked up in the 15 minute panels.

Also -- I'll award bonus points to anybody who understands why reach viewers were actually much bigger 20 years ago and why the reach numbers have (and will continue to) decline year on year.
Click to expand...
I think it's a pointless statistic,I think everyone does.

But there is no point getting all worked up over people literally posting data as gathered by others.(this isn't aimed at you @docbrown )
 
M

Mother Nature's Son

Juniors
Messages
655
docbrown said:
But what I can tell you is that if they become invested in the outcome of the game, they then start lifting the average. But the fact that there's typically a ratio of 3 to 4 to the average, tends to suggest they're brief viewers and not getting picked up in the 15 minute panels.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I think this is the paragraph that explains it best for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top