Texas TV rating

[SarahFan]

http://thescore.ibj.com/content/?p=1000


.36


for those keeping score.. season to date average is .985


*it appears that some 'fans' want to question the household # and claim typo and double it to .63......in the comments section the IBJ author debunks that claiming those are the #'s directly from nielson

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ken...I realize you are obsessed with the fact IRL ratings suck, and want to blame this on Tony George (indirectly, it is his fault), but again, what would you have done differently?

[SarahFan]

Ken...I realize you are obsessed with the fact IRL ratings suck, and want to blame this on Tony George (indirectly, it is his fault), but again, what would you have done differently?


did i mention Tony George?

[Jag_Warrior]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the various series rank now, with respect to TV ratings? It used to be that when on over-air-network, CCWS, IRL and ALMS would average around 1.0 for the season. On cable channels like Speed or ESPN/ESPN2, they'd get about 70% +/- of that.

I don't really keep up with the ratings anymore. But I do know that Grand Am saw a 47% increase in ratings for the Daytona 24 this year. The portion that was on Fox got about 1.2 million viewers. And as far as I know, Grand Am Rolex hangs around a .5 +/- Nielsen on Speed for the non-Daytona races.

So what I'm asking is, where do the various seres rank now. By the numbers so far, it looks like the IRL might be the lowest rated major racing series in the U.S. now. We know that NASCAR Sprint Cup is on top, and that the Nationwide Series comes next. But is ALMS next, then the NASCAR Truck series (it'll always be Craftsman Trucks to me), then Grand Am or NHRA and then the IRL?

Does anyone keep up with this these days?

[Mark in Oshawa]

did i mention Tony George?

Ken..I get the message you don't Tony. Hell neither do I but it still doesn't change the fact the TV ratings were gonna suck unless they had people forced to watch this series at gun point. You beat this dead horse, and there are far more entertaining ways to point out what is going wrong; but in the end, we have what we have, and we may lose it.

[SarahFan]

Ken..I get the message you don't Tony. Hell neither do I but it still doesn't change the fact the TV ratings were gonna suck unless they had people forced to watch this series at gun point. You beat this dead horse, and there are far more entertaining ways to point out what is going wrong; but in the end, we have what we have, and we may lose it.


stop projecting your frustrations onto me....

[chuck34]

Aparently no one noticed that this is the largest number of eyeballs to see an IRL race this year (outside of Indy). This is not doom and gloom at all. It looks like an up trend to me. But then again, I'm just a wide eyed optimist.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Aparently no one noticed that this is the largest number of eyeballs to see an IRL race this year (outside of Indy). This is not doom and gloom at all. It looks like an up trend to me. But then again, I'm just a wide eyed optimist.


Nothing wrong with that. Apparently I am projecting pessmism on Ken. I must learn to stop doing that. HE was a wild-eyed young optimist until I started dragging him down if you listen to him....

[SarahFan]

Aparently no one noticed that this is the largest number of eyeballs to see an IRL race this year (outside of Indy). This is not doom and gloom at all. It looks like an up trend to me. But then again, I'm just a wide eyed optimist.

only 1/2 true..

Milwaukee saw 800k+

it is being reported as the most to see a Vs broadcast......

[chuck34]

only 1/2 true..

Milwaukee saw 800k+

it is being reported as the most to see a Vs broadcast......

Your right, forgot about Milwaukee. Still an up trend (at least on Vs) is a good thing. I don't think open wheel racing has seen one of those in a while.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As long as the ratings are growing, that is a good thing.

[SarahFan]

As long as the ratings are growing, that is a good thing.

are they?

every single race to date has seen a decline over the previos year

[chuck34]

are they?

every single race to date has seen a decline over the previos year

Look at this year. As I said, comparisons between last year on ESPN and this year on VS are not valid because of the eyeballs deal. The general trend has been up this year on VS.

[Mark in Oshawa]

are they?

every single race to date has seen a decline over the previos year

Apples to oranges Ken. You would be correct to condemn management for going to a cable channel with only a quarter of the viewing audience of ESPN, but If the ratings are climbing on VS, and VS is actually going out of their way to stand behind the product, then I am not going to knock the job they are doing. ESPN treated the IRL product like crap. Little promotion. Once ESPN got their mitts back on NASCAR, the IRL was yesterday's news.

[SarahFan]

Ok.... Just so I'm clear as this discussion moves along over the next 10 races....

For example ..... If Iowa 2008 garnered a .4 on abc.... And gets a .5 next week on abc it is in fact trending downward because Milwaukee got a .6

Correct?

[garyshell]

Ken...I realize you are obsessed with the fact IRL ratings suck, and want to blame this on Tony George (indirectly, it is his fault), but again, what would you have done differently?


did i mention Tony George?


No, but you also didn't answer Mark's question did you?

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok.... Just so I'm clear as this discussion moves along over the next 10 races....

For example ..... If Iowa 2008 garnered a .4 on abc.... And gets a .5 next week on abc it is in fact trending downward because Milwaukee got a .6

Correct?


Ken...most of us sit here with our eyes glazed over...you never did answer my question. Gary is right.

[DBell]

only 1/2 true..

Milwaukee saw 800k+

it is being reported as the most to see a Vs broadcast......

I thought Long Beach got a .5 share. Has that changed? I noticed the IBJ article also mentions Texas is the highest versus rating. When we were discussing the LB ratings we were talking about it being .5
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132801

Also, has anyone seen a Versus commercial for Indy Car lately? I had seen a few earlier this year, but haven't seen one for a while.

[chuck34]

I thought Long Beach got a .5 share. Has that changed? I noticed the IBJ article also mentions Texas is the highest versus rating. When we were discussing the LB ratings we were talking about it being .5
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132801

Also, has anyone seen a Versus commercial for Indy Car lately? I had seen a few earlier this year, but haven't seen one for a while.

Something is funny with the ratings number. The actual number of people watching is greater for Texas than Long Beach. But for some reason the rating is lower. I don't understand it. But I've been talking about number of viewers to, hopefully, keep things simple

[Mark in Oshawa]

I believe the share of tv's turned on can make the actual number contradict it.

All I know if if you are on VS, you are going to try your best to get some kind of number to grow over time.

[chuck34]

Ok.... Just so I'm clear as this discussion moves along over the next 10 races....

For example ..... If Iowa 2008 garnered a .4 on abc.... And gets a .5 next week on abc it is in fact trending downward because Milwaukee got a .6

Correct?

Ken, after reading that IBJ deal, I gotta say the share thing confuses the heck out of me. Since it appears that there were more viewers watching Texas than LB, but LB got a higher share. What? But to your point ...

Yes if the number of viewers is less from '08 to '09 at Iowa that would be a "real" number. Not sure how I would call the "trend" this year of going from a .4 in '08 to a .5 in '09. That is an up trend for that race, but a down trend for the races on ABC this year. However, two data points don't make a trend. The races so far this year barely make a trend.

[chuck34]

I believe the share of tv's turned on can make the actual number contradict it.

All I know if if you are on VS, you are going to try your best to get some kind of number to grow over time.

So then basically share doesn't mean much? I mean if the number of viewers for a particular program is up over some time (last year, or last race) wouldn't that be good, even if the share is down? Maybe I'm too slow to follow this?

[Mark in Oshawa]

So then basically share doesn't mean much? I mean if the number of viewers for a particular program is up over some time (last year, or last race) wouldn't that be good, even if the share is down? Maybe I'm too slow to follow this?

Share is a percentage of TV's that are actually on at that time. IT means something but it can vary and one shouldn't read that much into it. I am listening to the radio currently as I type and they just had a discussion of the NHL Stanley Cup Finals on US TV and their ratings being up and more or less are in the same boat as the IRL. Great sport, ratings that suck in the US and both spend a lot of time on VS.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actual numbers mean more I suppose, but if your market share drops while your actual number of viewers go up, Ken would see it as a minus, while you and I would be optimistic because actual viewers was going up.

[SarahFan]

Actual numbers mean more I suppose, but if your market share drops while your actual number of viewers go up, Ken would see it as a minus, while you and I would be optimistic because actual viewers was going up.

see now mark.....your putting words in my mouth to fit your argument..

i said no such thing...


I questioned whether viership was actually up .... sure more folks watched last Sunday than the previos race on Vs.....but problem is less than 2008....so it depends on how you look at it....


at seasons end will less viewers tuned in over the coarse of 2009 than 2008?

if so then viewership is down correct?..... your argument seems to be if the last race garners more viewers than the second to last than viewership is up?

I suggest my argument holds more water than yours.....you can believe whatever you want..... but I'd bet dollars to donuts sponsors would side with me on this one...



so... to ask again...in reverse

if a race has less viewers than the previos race, but it's rating is higher than 2008 is that a step forward or backward?

[SarahFan]

Ken, after reading that IBJ deal, I gotta say the share thing confuses the heck out of me. Since it appears that there were more viewers watching Texas than LB, but LB got a higher share. What? But to your point ...

Yes if the number of viewers is less from '08 to '09 at Iowa that would be a "real" number. Not sure how I would call the "trend" this year of going from a .4 in '08 to a .5 in '09. That is an up trend for that race, but a down trend for the races on ABC this year. However, two data points don't make a trend. The races so far this year barely make a trend.

the rating and vHH # don't jive in relation to previos races...


the author of the IBJ article has stated he got the #('s'?) directly from neilson.....and that the .36 # is correct...

I have a feeling he took the rating and mis-calculated the HH# ......we may never know as i suspect when dealing with a .36 and less than a 1/2 mil viwers the author and IBJ dont really care to correct it

YMMV

[SarahFan]

No, but you also didn't answer Mark's question did you?

Gary


problem Gary is question is based on the premise i hate Tony george... i don't..

and of coarse no matter how i answer is nothing more than hindsight being 20/20 or revisionist history...


and othen theres "how" do I answer

do i answer as a I500 purist.... then i would never have allowed the tintops to run on hallowed ground..

do i answer as biz man... well 600million later i would never have created the IRL....

do i answer as a true believer of the Vision...... then i would never have veered from coarse


do i answer a a CC fan..... well then FTG

do i answer as a CC team owner and board owner.... well then i show up in force to Disneyworld and Pheonix and put the split ot bed before it ever gets started...

of coarse thats all focused on the creation of the IRL and the Biz of IMS...


then you have to ask yourself if your Tony do i create the IRL at all.... and if i do is 25/8 a good idea....

did i spend enough on the front end......for example had i spent 200mil more the first few years would I have had to spend 300 mil to keep it afloat?

did i do my homework on pepboys and northern lights....

then there is ABC and the I500 contract....clearly it should have been leveraged earlier...



I could go on and and......bottomline its a question that has no right answers, but at the same time has nothing but right answers





the real question is..... whats next.... well you know what i think...... and i think its the right thing...

the owners are going to form a 'association' of sorts.......

[The instant classic]

just for the record i did not watch texas, or any races on VS i think VS is a waste of my money if indycar is the only on that channel, as i dont care for the NHL, and i do watch the races on ABC (thats if nascar is not on at the same time) so indycar hasnt got my ratings since the indy 500 ( but i tape the race)
thats all i had to say about rating, now have a great weekend guys, im leaving soon to MIS for the truck.nation wade and nascar sprint cup if anyone is going let me know :)

[SarahFan]

just for the record i did not watch texas, or any races on VS i think VS is a waste of my money if indycar is the only on that channel, as i dont care for the NHL, and i do watch the races on ABC (thats if nascar is not on at the same time) so indycar hasnt got my ratings since the indy 500 ( but i tape the race)
thats all i had to say about rating, now have a great weekend guys, im leaving soon to MIS for the truck.nation wade and nascar sprint cup if anyone is going let me know :)

have a great time.....

[The instant classic]

have a great time.....
thanks Ken

[chuck34]

the rating and vHH # don't jive in relation to previos races...


the author of the IBJ article has stated he got the #('s'?) directly from neilson.....and that the .36 # is correct...

I have a feeling he took the rating and mis-calculated the HH# ......we may never know as i suspect when dealing with a .36 and less than a 1/2 mil viwers the author and IBJ dont really care to correct it

YMMV

So you are saying that you believe the share number and not the viewer's number?

That would be the difference between you and me then. I'm an optimist so I go with the higher number. You are a pesimest and go with the lower number. Glass half full vs flass half empty I suppose. I've spent too much of my life looking at the "down side" to waste any more time with that stuff.

Word of advice (I know you don't want it comming from me especially, but) enjoy the racing and look for positives in life. It'll be much more enjoyable that way. Stop wasting time with things you can't control. If you can control them, then do SOMETHING ... or at least give constructive comments.

[SarahFan]

So you are saying that you believe the share number and not the viewer's number?

That would be the difference between you and me then. I'm an optimist so I go with the higher number. You are a pesimest and go with the lower number. Glass half full vs flass half empty I suppose. I've spent too much of my life looking at the "down side" to waste any more time with that stuff.

Word of advice (I know you don't want it comming from me especially, but) enjoy the racing and look for positives in life. It'll be much more enjoyable that way. Stop wasting time with things you can't control. If you can control them, then do SOMETHING ... or at least give constructive comments.

what i'm saying is I believe the rating.... and i think the HH is miscalculated...

its not matter of half full or half empty.... it's a matter of looking at the previos 6 rcaes.... all down.... the Vs races really down....then factor in whether i believe texas on Vs could beat Milwaukee on ABC .63 to .6....that doesn't wash with me.....

are you suggesting I dont enjoy the racing?

take your own advice and apply.... if your not interested in the TV ratings dont click on the thread....

[chuck34]

what i'm saying is I believe the rating.... and i think the HH is miscalculated...

its not matter of half full or half empty.... it's a matter of looking at the previos 6 rcaes.... all down.... the Vs races really down....then factor in whether i believe texas on Vs could beat Milwaukee on ABC .63 to .6....that doesn't wash with me.....

are you suggesting I dont enjoy the racing?

take your own advice and apply.... if your not interested in the TV ratings dont click on the thread....

It's just fun to discuss things sometimes. I really enjoy the engineering side of things, but no one seems to want to talk about that much. We have a few things going in other threads.

That's my point Ken. There are two numbers out there that don't seem to correlate, the HH#(viewers) and share. The viewer number is up, the share number is down. I tend to believe the viewer number (optimistic view), you believe the share number (pessimistic view). That's fine, I could be wrong, you could be wrong, I don't know.

If you look at the previous 6 races and compare them to last year, you're right they are all down. But what I see is a trend upward for the VS races. Perhaps not as steady a climb as I (or anyone) would like to see. But it does appear to be an up trend. When was the last time that happened on ABC or ESPN?

I'm seeing signs of life. You appear to only want to see doom and gloom. That's fine with me, you can look at whatever numbers you want any way you want. I'm mearly pointing out that seems to be an uptick in number of viewers watching the VS races.

[SarahFan]

That's my point Ken. There are two numbers out there that don't seem to correlate, the HH#(viewers) and share. The viewer number is up, the share number is down. I tend to believe the viewer number (optimistic view), you believe the share number (pessimistic view). That's fine, I could be wrong, you could be wrong, I don't know.

.

your not describing a case of being either optimistic or pessimistic....

your describing a case of wishful thinking vs logical thinking....curios considering your into the engineering side of things

[chuck34]

your not describing a case of being either optimistic or pessimistic....

your describing a case of wishful thinking vs logical thinking....curios considering your into the engineering side of things

What? The logical way of thinking is as follows. The number of households that were viewing an event is KNOWN. Neilson then uses that to calculate the share based on number of housholds watching TV at that point, or whatever they do. But the absolute known number is the number of TVs watching a particular channel at a particular time. Therefore I believe that number (a known) over any calculated number (always some degree of uncertainty).

And the number of households watching VS has increased since the start of the year. Is it so hard to be happy about that?

[NickFalzone]

There are no significant trends to look at yet.

1. We all know, and everyone knew from day 1 of the contract being signed with Versus, that the number of viewers would be significantly down from ESPN and ABC. ABC is a national broadcast network that literally everyone that has a tv and a set of rabbit ears (or digital rabbit ears as of tomorrow) can watch. ESPN, on cable, is in MANY millions more homes than Versus, as much as 30% more. As soon as that contract was signed, ratings would be down. Everyone knew this from day one.

2. Comparing week to week, I see some positives with Texas in that it's still getting in the higher .3's and did a good viewer number. The share is so-so for the Texas race because it ran at night, which always has more TVs on across the country, but the viewer number is higher, BECAUSE more tvs are on. A .36 at 2 am is much less viewership than a .36 at 8 pm at night. So yes, the viewership of ~500,000 is pretty decent, particularly for Versus.

3. Comparing a Versus rating against a previous weekend race on ABC is obviously unfair. In fact for Versus to get a .36 and ABC to get a .6, really is an amazing accomplishment for Versus to get a number that close to the ABC number, considering ABC is in probably 4 times more households than Versus. It also suggests that a lot of the IndyCar fanbase that wants to watch the racing, will find it where it is. That fanbase is not very large now though, it's probably a .6, and you get a dropoff on Versus.

4. The numbers so far on Versus are VERY close and even a bit better than last year's regular NHL season numbers on VS. This year NHL ratings have been better than ever, due in no small part to some great playoffs. Versus has treated the NHL well though, and grown its viewership considerably. We should consider the growth that NHL has had over 3 years on Versus to IndyCar's potential at growth over the next several seasons. Nothing comes immediately, but if they continue to fine tune the presentation and promotion of the IndyCar product, then it may well be in a solid ratings situation by the time of the Centennial.

[chuck34]

There are no significant trends to look at yet.

1. We all know, and everyone knew from day 1 of the contract being signed with Versus, that the number of viewers would be significantly down from ESPN and ABC. ABC is a national broadcast network that literally everyone that has a tv and a set of rabbit ears (or digital rabbit ears as of tomorrow) can watch. ESPN, on cable, is in MANY millions more homes than Versus, as much as 30% more. As soon as that contract was signed, ratings would be down. Everyone knew this from day one.

2. Comparing week to week, I see some positives with Texas in that it's still getting in the higher .3's and did a good viewer number. The share is so-so for the Texas race because it ran at night, which always has more TVs on across the country, but the viewer number is higher, BECAUSE more tvs are on. A .36 at 2 am is much less viewership than a .36 at 8 pm at night. So yes, the viewership of ~500,000 is pretty decent, particularly for Versus.

3. Comparing a Versus rating against a previous weekend race on ABC is obviously unfair. In fact for Versus to get a .36 and ABC to get a .6, really is an amazing accomplishment for Versus to get a number that close to the ABC number. It also suggests that a lot of the IndyCar fanbase that wants to watch the racing, will find it where it is. That fanbase is not very large now though, it's probably a .6, and you get a dropoff on Versus.

4. The numbers so far on Versus are VERY close and even a bit better than last year's regular NHL season numbers on VS. This year NHL ratings have been better than ever, due in no small part to some great playoffs. Versus has treated the NHL well though, and grown its viewership considerably. We should consider the growth that NHL has had over 3 years on Versus to IndyCar's potential at growth over the next several seasons. Nothing comes immediately, but if they continue to fine tune the presentation and promotion of the IndyCar product, then it may well be in a solid ratings situation by the time of the Centennial.

Agreed 100% and better said than I could ever do. Thank you.

[SarahFan]

Nick....

There is in fact a 14 year trend ..... As well as precedent set by cc spike and speed tv deals

[Lousada]

I find it pretty shocking that 20% of the people who saw the race - were at the race!

[SarahFan]

I find it pretty shocking that 20% of the people who saw the race - were at the race!


more like 15%.....but point made for certain

[SarahFan]

What? The logical way of thinking is as follows. The number of households that were viewing an event is KNOWN. Neilson then uses that to calculate the share based on number of housholds watching TV at that point, or whatever they do. But the absolute known number is the number of TVs watching a particular channel at a particular time. Therefore I believe that number (a known) over any calculated number (always some degree of uncertainty).

And the number of households watching VS has increased since the start of the year. Is it so hard to be happy about that?

see.... now thats logical.... i can understand your argument.....

but thats not what you said...

you said 'i believe the higher # becuase i'm an optomist'....

two very different statements

[Jag_Warrior]

What? The logical way of thinking is as follows. The number of households that were viewing an event is KNOWN. Neilson then uses that to calculate the share based on number of housholds watching TV at that point, or whatever they do. But the absolute known number is the number of TVs watching a particular channel at a particular time. Therefore I believe that number (a known) over any calculated number (always some degree of uncertainty).

Both Nielsen calculations are based on random sampling and statistical inference. Short of having People Meters in 100% of the homes in the U.S., Nielsen has no way to "know" either ratings or share with 100% confidence. So based on an analysis of demographically structured, random sampling, Nielsen looks at the estimated total number of TV sets in the U.S. (whether they're on or not doesn't matter), then they estimate the percentage of those TV sets tuned into a particular program at a given time = the rating. The construction of the share number is much the same, only it's based on the estimated percentage of TV sets watching a particular show vs. the estimated number of TV sets that are actually turned on. Share is more a representation of how you're doing against your competition during that viewing time.

There are no "100% known" numbers in this sampling methodology - even on the total number of TV households. Only a census could generate that, and even a census is not 100% reliable. But Nielsen's system is a very sophisticated measurement system. It's not a case of "this number is valid and this number is not valid." It doesn't work that way.

[Chamoo]

It's rumored IBJ had a typo in their article. They say the race got .36 rating, with 467000 households tuning in. However, Long Beach got 388,864 but the rating was like a .47 or something like that.

I'm no mathematician, but that math doesn't add up. The .36 Texas rating brought in more households then higher rated LB race.

It leads me to believe it should be .63 not .36.