Toronto TV rating

[SarahFan]

1.0......nice to see them hit the magical mark after falling short on the other 3 non indy races

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/weekend-tv-ratings.htm

for those keeping score at home... season to date..

.3
.5
.15
4.0
.6
.36
.8
.22
.9
1.0

.88 YTD avg with Indy
.54 YTD avg sans Indy

[drewdawg727]

Woo!! A whole number! Lets keep it goin!
Back to Versus for Edmonton though, let's hope we gained enough fans on the Network Channels to keep our rating high.

[NickFalzone]

It's the best non-Indy rating this season. Too bad it's also the last ABC race of the season. I guess we'll have to see what VS can do.

[dataman1]

It's the best non-Indy rating this season. Too bad it's also the last ABC race of the season. I guess we'll have to see what VS can do.

Likely due to no NASCAR on Sunday to compete.

[SarahFan]

It's the best non-Indy rating this season. Too bad it's also the last ABC race of the season. I guess we'll have to see what VS can do.


average so far on VS has been .3... if that holds the season average including Indy will be .64

[NickFalzone]

Likely due to no NASCAR on Sunday to compete.

That's part of it, although there's been a couple of IRL races with no competing NASCAR races (either sat/sun or reversed) and IRL ratings have been awful, so that's not the whole story. I think street races play better for the IRL on tv than the boring ovals, IMO. It's probably not a coincidence either that TO was the best race of the season.

[peasant]

The street and road courses are a lot better watch, because they can actually pass. If it wasn't for the ridiculous way the pit is closed for FCY they would be even better. Not so much a straight out lottery.

[Chamoo]

Ken, that .36 is actually a .63. There was a mix up in the article.

[peasant]

Ken, that .36 is actually a .63. There was a mix up in the article.

That was just what some people wished to believe on certain forums. Where is an statement from neilsen that it was a mistake?

[SarahFan]

Ken, that .36 is actually a .63. There was a mix up in the article.



Actually..... No it wasn't

[Marbles]

The great thing about the Toronto track, other than it's penchant for producing great racing, is that it presents itself well on TV. It looks busy! Despite some empty seats scattered higgledy-piggledy, every camera shot contains fans in the background. Either a granstand or general admission is visible on television throughout the course.

[Chamoo]

That was just what some people wished to believe on certain forums. Where is an statement from neilsen that it was a mistake?

The .36 rating somehow had more viewers then the .5 rating earlier in the year. It is obviously a mistake.

As for Nielsen's, this doesn't fall on them. That report, like many other reports about ratings come from The Score.

[SarahFan]

The .36 rating somehow had more viewers then the .5 rating earlier in the year. It is obviously a mistake.

As for Nielsen's, this doesn't fall on them. That report, like many other reports about ratings come from The Score.


the author was asked directly... and his response was he got the .36 directly from neilson

change if you like.... but until (and we wont) see another official # then it stands.....

and lets be honest... one sucks... the other sucks just a bit worse

[NickFalzone]

Chamoo, the .36 was right. It had more viewers because it was on at a time of the day/day of the week with more people watching. IE - smaller % of people watching, but more total. And as Ken said, they both suck. Though if VS was getting .63's consistently by the end of the year, I'd be impressed with that.

[Chamoo]

the author was asked directly... and his response was he got the .36 directly from neilson

change if you like.... but until (and we wont) see another official # then it stands.....

and lets be honest... one sucks... the other sucks just a bit worse

Alright, my bad then gentlemen.

[NickFalzone]

Here's the final numbers for the ABC season, even with last year's ratings:

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/ratings-game_18.html

"Last Sunday's inaugural IRL Honda Indy Toronto drew a 1.0/3 final rating (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/131807) on ABC, the highest rating of the season for an IRL race outside of the Indianapolis 500. The 1.0 rating doubled the 0.5 for taped coverage of the F1 Santander German Grand Prix later that day. Overall, ABC averaged a 1.5 rating for its IRL coverage in '09 (5 races), even with last year (7 races). Excluding the Indianapolis 500, ABC averaged a 0.9 rating, down 10% from last year's 1.0."

[SarahFan]

Here's the final numbers for the ABC season, even with last year's ratings:

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/ratings-game_18.html

"Last Sunday's inaugural IRL Honda Indy Toronto drew a 1.0/3 final rating (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/131807) on ABC, the highest rating of the season for an IRL race outside of the Indianapolis 500. The 1.0 rating doubled the 0.5 for taped coverage of the F1 Santander German Grand Prix later that day. Overall, ABC averaged a 1.5 rating for its IRL coverage in '09 (5 races), even with last year (7 races). Excluding the Indianapolis 500, ABC averaged a 0.9 rating, down 10% from last year's 1.0."

not so sure how they came up with 'Even'..

we know the Indy 500 was down becuase it was the lowest rated 500 since they started broadcasting it live....

and if the non indy 500 races averaged a 10% decrease...

color me confused..... that just sounds 'down'... not even

I supose the other 2 races must have been sub .8........well I'm sure we all can fill in the blanks

[chuck34]

Hey Ken, can you give us a run-down on eyballs watching instead of just ratings? After the whole .35/.63 deal, I don't really care about the "rating" anymore. (I know the ad guys do). But I just want to know how many people are watching the races. And do you have similar numbers for last year?

[Lousada]

not so sure how they came up with 'Even'..

They showed 7 races on ABC last year. That means Indy had a smaller part in the average than it has this year.

[SarahFan]

Hey Ken, can you give us a run-down on eyballs watching instead of just ratings? After the whole .35/.63 deal, I don't really care about the "rating" anymore. (I know the ad guys do). But I just want to know how many people are watching the races. And do you have similar numbers for last year?


sorry chuck... haven't been keeping track... and i'm way to lazy to go back now...

maybe for 2010

[SarahFan]

They showed 7 races on ABC last year. That means Indy had a smaller part in the average than it has this year.

I know..... but dont you think to suggest there 'even' is a bit of a stretch?

[SarahFan]

and chuck.... there was no .36/.63 deal....

a handful of posters on another forum questioned the #....... the author stated without question the # came directly from neilson....

[chuck34]

and chuck.... there was no .36/.63 deal....

a handful of posters on another forum questioned the #....... the author stated without question the # came directly from neilson....

There WAS a .36/.63 deal. The problem is that I don't care if the "Share" was .36, .63, 3.6, or 6.3. It doesn't matter to me what-so-ever. The number of eyeballs is what matters to me. Earlier in the year, Long Beach maybe, there was a race with a .5 share and something like 300,000 viewers. Then came the infamous .36. Well there were something like 500,000 viewers watching that race. An increase in the number of viewers translates to decrease in the share. I understand there are other factors at work, but what I think is important is how many people are actually watching the races, not some theoretical percentage of TV's turned on, etc.

So I decieded that the share number is pretty meaningless, especially at such low values. So I wanted to know the viewers numbers.

If you don't have them, do you know where I can find them?

[NickFalzone]

To me, calling the ratings "even" is a bit unfair considering that the 500 counts more in this year's ratings than last. That being said, the important comparison IMO is the regular series ratings from year to year. Not counting the 500, the regular series ratings are averaging a .9 on ABC this season, compared to a 1.0 on ABC last season. So they're 10% off. That could be attributed to the VS effect of less consistency on the ABC/ESPN schedule, or who knows what. The other important comparison will be race to race on Versus to see if they can do anything with it, particularly now that they're getting some good viewership with the Tour de France. Then the real comparisons will start with 2010 Versus ratings against the 2009 ones.

[NickFalzone]

There WAS a .36/.63 deal. The problem is that I don't care if the "Share" was .36, .63, 3.6, or 6.3. It doesn't matter to me what-so-ever. The number of eyeballs is what matters to me. Earlier in the year, Long Beach maybe, there was a race with a .5 share and something like 300,000 viewers. Then came the infamous .36. Well there were something like 500,000 viewers watching that race. An increase in the number of viewers translates to decrease in the share. I understand there are other factors at work, but what I think is important is how many people are actually watching the races, not some theoretical percentage of TV's turned on, etc.

So I decieded that the share number is pretty meaningless, especially at such low values. So I wanted to know the viewers numbers.

If you don't have them, do you know where I can find them?

Chuck, your best bet might be going to that website I posted above with the ABC ratings and searching or contacting the blogger there. Nielsen ratings are "sold", you need to pay for their service to get accurate #'s. They do freely give out like top ten of the week and that sort of thing, but for more in-depth specific ratings, particularly on cable, the numbers are not freely published for just anyone to view.

[SarahFan]

There WAS a .36/.63 deal. The problem is that I don't care if the "Share" was .36, .63, 3.6, or 6.3. It doesn't matter to me what-so-ever. The number of eyeballs is what matters to me. Earlier in the year, Long Beach maybe, there was a race with a .5 share and something like 300,000 viewers. Then came the infamous .36. Well there were something like 500,000 viewers watching that race. An increase in the number of viewers translates to decrease in the share. I understand there are other factors at work, but what I think is important is how many people are actually watching the races, not some theoretical percentage of TV's turned on, etc.

So I decieded that the share number is pretty meaningless, especially at such low values. So I wanted to know the viewers numbers.

If you don't have them, do you know where I can find them?

sounds like you sit squarely in the group that wants to artificially create a 'deal'.... where there isn't one

[chuck34]

sounds like you sit squarely in the group that wants to artificially create a 'deal'.... where there isn't one

Perhaps I do want to create a "deal". What do you care? Do you not think that something is strange when one program gets ~40% more viewers and yet their "rating" is ~28% lower?

All I am saying is that seems strange to me, and therefore I personally do not care one whit about the ratings. I want to see number of viewers.

If that is "artificially creating a 'deal'", then so be it.

[chuck34]

Found it.

http://thescore.ibj.com/content/?p=1082

So it looks like about 1.1million people watched Toronto. Sounds ok, not great.

Can we start tracking that number now too? I'll try to, but some of you on here are better at tracking things than I am.

[SarahFan]

Can we start tracking that number now too? .

sure you can.... seems to be a 'deal' for you..so go big

BTW...your arguments have all been presented before......at CCF regarding CC/CART spike/speed TV deals

[chuck34]

sure you can.... seems to be a 'deal' for you..so go big

BTW...your arguments have all been presented before......at CCF regarding CC/CART spike/speed TV deals

So? Those numbers went down, no matter how you looked at them. And we know their fate. If the IRL numbers continue to go down, I suppose it'll have the same fate. And please no one cream your drawers just yet, I'm talking long term.

And my argument isn't quite the same anyway. I'm not arguing that these numbers help or hurt the league. In fact, since the ad guys only look at ratings, I'm sure it all hurts the league. I'm just personally trying to figure out how many people are watching the races.

YOU seem to be the one that is making an agrument here. All I'm doing is asking a fairly simple question.

[SarahFan]

I'm talking long term.

n.

Long Term?

how long are we talking chuck?


you do relize that the IRL TV ratings...sans an occasional blip...... has been on a steady decline for over a decade

dont you?

as CART teams ran Indy...Down

As cart came over full time.....Down

Danimania.....down

addition of street/roads.... down

thru merger..... down

the loss of ovalcentricity.... down

the versus experiment....down

at what point to you come to reality and say....TV rating are trending backward?

[chuck34]

the versus experiment....down



To early to say, that's my point.

I'm tired of the doom and gloom. I'm sure you'll call it "realism", but I don't care. Why can't we have a bit of optimisim? Is that too much to ask for? All anyone around here seems to want to do is wring their hands, say CART was better, the IRL is doomed, TG is an idiot, etc.

I'm tired of it.

All I did was ask one simple question about how many people actually watched the race, and all I get in response is "the sky is falling".

No wonder participation on this board is almost non-existent. People are tired of hearing the IRL is crap and CART was great, can't you see the numbers all suck, the racing is bad, on and on.

Sorry for the rant. I'm frustrated!

[SarahFan]

Sorry for the rant. I'm frustrated!

you should be frustrated


but remember.... the split Eera finnally came to an end last month....it will be rough for the short term...but change is upon is

[chuck34]

you should be frustrated


but remember.... the split Eera finnally came to an end last month....it will be rough for the short term...but change is upon is

Last month??

[SarahFan]

Last month??


yep... last month