2024 AFL TV Ratings and Streaming

[Fletched]

It's like complaining about kicks as a stat because it doesn't take into account where those kicks go.

Joe had 20 kicks, but his metres gained was only 350! Yet Dave had only 15 kicks but had 600 metres gained! Kicks is a rubbish stat and they shouldn't even report it

People Don't then go and make annoying articles using the dodgy kick stat like they do with TV ratings articles though

 

[Bjo187]

Of the links provided above, the only really significant point is the possibility that reach figures could be inflated by people tuning in to the next show and catching the last minute of the previous one. This could be a factor (when it comes to football ratings) particularly on Sundays with the news. It certainly makes the case for a longer "minimum time" requirement

Other than that relatively minor factor though, none of the above contests the clear superiority of accumulated reach data in comparing relative TV audiences of the AFL and NRL (rather than accumulated averages).

Reach would very slightly advantage the longer game (i.e. AFL) but averages are just plain misleading. As I have clearly demonstrated several times (and you have clearly grasped).

One thing id say about that is, it's more likely that the news will get more reach off the back of the footy audience though, which is the whole reason they traditionally run the 3.20pm game right up till 6pm. This helps to get some stragglers off the footy that don't usually watch the news to tune in.

All sports would do this I'd imagine though, including the eastern seaboard national rugby league on ch9. I think they'd also pick up the news stragglers on the Friday night which the afl wouldn't due to better homes and gardens, so footy potentially loses out there with some reach for the Friday night game.

Overall though a point I'd like to make is, other than the news stragglers, I don't see in this day and age why anybody with no interest in a sporting contest or show would flick onto that show for more than a minute anyway? The reason being, it's not like when we were kids whereby there was no tv guide on the actual tv and you'd have only 5 channels and flick through them one by one to see what's on because you don't have a tv guide in your hand. These days the whole guide is on the tv and there are over 10 channels on fta and about 50 channels if you have foxtel. Why would anybody flick onto something they don't want to at least check in on these days? I can't remember the last time I just clicked onto a random channel for no reason and just sat there for minutes twiddling my thumbs. So the amount of extra reach numbers of people with zero interest in a show would be so minor it would barely even register anything to distort the numbers.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Are cracks starting to appear in new look TV ratings? | TV Tonight

If you didn't hit the remote between MAFS ending and Clarkson's Farm starting then Nine is probably very grateful.

tvtonight.com.au

If you didn't hit the remote between MAFS ending and Clarkson's Farm starting then Nine is probably very grateful.​

In the new-look Ratings from OzTAM there are more surprises being uncovered, including Free to Air replays of Prime Video’s Clarkson’s Farm reaching 1.48m viewers last night. Whoa…
Given Reach includes just 1 minute of viewing (or just 15 secs on BVOD) and the show followed Married at First Sight this suggests a lot of viewers had not yet “reached” for the Remote. Notably its audience average is actually just 348,000.
MAFS meanwhile reached 2.34m viewers, well in front of Australian Idol‘s 1.42m and Australian Survivor‘s 1.02m.

I think that shows how flawed the reach stat by itself, is. People just don't just change the channel straight away. That is why lead ins are always so important.

Clarksons Farm outreached Aussie Idol, and yet Aussie Idol more than doubled the average ratings of C.Farm.

Clarksons Farm was not the 5th "most popular" tv show last night. it is only because of its lead in that it is in that possie.

 

[Bjo187]

Are cracks starting to appear in new look TV ratings? | TV Tonight

If you didn't hit the remote between MAFS ending and Clarkson's Farm starting then Nine is probably very grateful.

tvtonight.com.au

I think that shows how flawed the reach stat by itself, is. People just don't just change the channel straight away. That is why lead ins are always so important.

Clarksons Farm outreached Aussie Idol, and yet Aussie Idol more than doubled the average ratings of C.Farm.

Clarksons Farm was not the 5th "most popular" tv show last night. it is only because of its lead in that it is in that possie.

That's why the second column is there, to show you the average as well for these few anomolys.

Mafs is the biggest show on Australian television, outside of that and the news (which makes little difference as 7 and 9 will both have roughly the same stragglers), the significant majority of all other shows and timeslots will have a fairer and more accurate reading.

In saying that though, if they want to clean up these small percentage of outliers, they could simply swap tv reach to 3 min and bvod to 1 minute. I still don't know if the reach is a one off or cumulative 1 minute though, if it's cumulative then it misses a number of people that will flick on and flick off sports a number of times, they will miss out on being counted in the total reach number.

 

[The_Wookie]

Exactly right. It is not like they are no longer reporting the average ratings. The dude is whinging about what is being used to rank



Correct again, it is an apple and oranges comparison when you are comparing two different genres of show.

This is where you need actual analysts which this guy clearly isn't as demonstrated by....



This is just shallow analysis. There are a range of factors that are relevant

1. genre of show - some shows (definitely sports, possibly reality / competition TV shows) would have far more people watching a portion of the show than drama / docos
2. ads - abc does not have ads so less channel surfing
3. show length - (the AFL v NRL problem) where a higher ration of reach to average is just a function of people watching some portion being counted more in the average

The point is, more generally, you have two data points now rather than one to carry out analyses. No analytically competent person would think have extra data points is a bad thing. Having both Reach and averages helps unpack these things over time.

Of the links provided above, the only really significant point is the possibility that reach figures could be inflated by people tuning in to the next show and catching the last minute of the previous one. This could be a factor (when it comes to football ratings) particularly on Sundays with the news. It certainly makes the case for a longer "minimum time" requirement

Other than that relatively minor factor though, none of the above contests the clear superiority of accumulated reach data in comparing relative TV audiences of the AFL and NRL (rather than accumulated averages).

Reach would very slightly advantage the longer game (i.e. AFL) but averages are just plain misleading. As I have clearly demonstrated several times (and you have clearly grasped).

As you might say, no offence, but Im going to take the opinions of long recognised industry experts over an anonymous guy on Bigfooty.

Ive yet to see an actual industry expert that agrees with using reach as a signifcant measure of anything.

 

[Bjo187]

As you might say, no offence, but Im going to take the opinions of long recognised industry experts over an anonymous guy on Bigfooty.

Ive yet to see an actual industry expert that agrees with using reach as a signifcant measure of anything.

Why though, the so called industry experts liked the old model which had some massive flaws in it and was so outdated it wasn't funny. The new model isn't perfect, but there should have been changes at least 5 years ago.

 

[The_Wookie]

Why though, the so called industry experts liked the old model which had some massive flaws in it and was so outdated it wasn't funny. The new model isn't perfect, but there should have been changes at least 5 years ago.

Well mostly because they are recognised experts. And none of you are.

Wont matter much this year anyway, unless Fox gets Kantar up and running and publicly available, it would appear there wont be much in the way of ratings to talk about unless its on FTA.

 

[Rob]

What makes an expert an expert? Most of the people I read on twitter are just TV opinion commentators. I have no idea what their actual expertise is.

 

[The Educator]

As you might say, no offence, but Im going to take the opinions of long recognised industry experts over an anonymous guy on Bigfooty.

Ive yet to see an actual industry expert that agrees with using reach as a signifcant measure of anything.

You do you dude.

Have you looked up ad verecundiam fallacy yet?

What makes an expert an expert? Most of the people I read on twitter are just TV opinion commentators. I have no idea what their actual expertise is.

Exactly right.

In some spheres you can point to actual expertise that is anchored in substantial knowledge acquired in a defined area of knowledge.

The links provided earlier just looks like industry insiders with little to no analytical grounding.

Why is the dude with a background in TV publicity an "expert" (i.e. About — Vickery Media) in tv Ratings but the CEO of the biggest network not?

 

[Bjo187]

The old system, 2 restaurants:

Restaurant A:
Open 2 hours
50 customers dining in across that time
No coffee or uber eats orders
Photos taken in resturaunt during set interval times averaged 35 people in there.
Average 35 customers!

Restaurant B:
Open for 4 hours
55 customers for dining during that time
Photo taken in restaurant during set interval times had only 28 people average in there.
Resturaunt also does 30 coffee and uber eats orders from non sit down customers across the 4 hours, but we don't count them because they are only in there < 1 min.
Average 28 customers!

Results:
Old system, resturaunt A is deemed more popular than resturaunt B, despite 50 customers in total, compared to 85 customers.

Restaurant B actually had more customers engage in their product, yet gets dudded because they are open for longer and not everybody gets counted that came in.

 

[BobbyMorri]

The old system, 2 restaurants:

Restaurant A:
Open 2 hours
50 customers dining in across that time
No coffee or uber eats orders
Photos taken in resturaunt during set interval times averaged 35 people in there.
Average 35 customers!

Restaurant B:
Open for 4 hours
55 customers for dining during that time
Photo taken in restaurant during set interval times had only 28 people average in there.
Resturaunt also does 30 coffee and uber eats orders from non sit down customers across the 4 hours, but we don't count them because they are only in there < 1 min.
Average 28 customers!

Results:
Old system, resturaunt A is deemed more popular than resturaunt B, despite 50 customers in total, compared to 85 customers.

Restaurant B actually had more customers engage in their product, yet gets dudded because they are open for longer and not everybody gets counted that came in.

Restaurant C
Open for 8 hours.
Gets a bus load of tourists with 90 customers at one stage
The majority only get a cup of coffee and stay 10 mins.
Only serve 100 customers total.
Yet is number 1 place with the new system

Reach only is flawed. If the issue with Average was the length of the show, that is very minor. If you are interested in a show, you know the length of it. I think the average shows more data for longer than reach. It shows how much of the audience stays and watches the show to the end, including the ads.

You only have to look at the mess of the current ratings table to see how many shows are incorrectly placed. A much of old movies are in the top 5, despite low average and BOD ratings.

Plus the lack of regional data or audience shares. This move is backward. It is nice that they show reach data now, but that is all i can say.

 

[BobbyMorri]

What makes an expert an expert? Most of the people I read on twitter are just TV opinion commentators. I have no idea what their actual expertise is.

getting paid would be one.

Living in the world of TV would be another.

We all have infinite time during the day to do certain tasks. I take the opinion of a known expert who spends hours on TV over anonymous people on the net.

 

[Bjo187]

Restaurant C
Open for 8 hours.
Gets a bus load of tourists with 90 customers at one stage
The majority only get a cup of coffee and stay 10 mins.
Only serve 100 customers total.
Yet is number 1 place with the new system

Reach only is flawed. If the issue with Average was the length of the show, that is very minor. If you are interested in a show, you know the length of it. I think the average shows more data for longer than reach. It shows how much of the audience stays and watches the show to the end.

You only have to look at the mess of the current ratings table to see how many shows are incorrectly placed. A much of old movies are in the top 5, despite low average and BOD ratings.

Plus the lack of regional data or audience shares. This move is backward. It is nice that they show reach data now, but that is all i can say.

So it should be number 1 placed if it had more customers on that day than every other restaurant in the town. Now if you wanna dig deeper to see if it's an anomaly like the tourist bus is, you simply go to column 2 to read the average.

Personally I like to know which resturaunt in the town had the most customers, not which one has a higher average customers in the shop because they are open for half the amount of time of their competitor.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You do you dude.

Have you looked up ad verecundiam fallacy yet?




Exactly right.

In some spheres you can point to actual expertise that is anchored in substantial knowledge acquired in a defined area of knowledge.

The links provided earlier just looks like industry insiders with little to no analytical grounding.

Why is the dude with a background in TV publicity an "expert" (i.e. About — Vickery Media) in tv Ratings but the CEO of the biggest network not?

you haven't changed at all.

 

[BobbyMorri]

So it should be number 1 placed if it had more customers on that day than every other restaurant in the town. Now if you wanna dig deeper to see if it's an anomaly like the tourist bus is, you simply go to column 2 to read the average.

Personally I like to know which resturaunt in the town had the most customers, not which one has a higher average customers in the shop because they are open for half the amount of time of their competitor.

If I wanted to go to the best restaurant I would go to the one which looks full all the time. That is a known economic theory.

A full restaurant for 2 hours or a mostly empty restaurant for 8 hours. We are choosing different places.

But it really depends on what you define as best. It would change depending on what you are looking for.

More Data is always good, but Oztam has given us way less data with this new change. They are forcing advertisers and commentators to look at the bigger numbers and not allowing us to make our own judgement.

 

[Bjo187]

If I wanted to go to the best restaurant I would go to the one which looks full all the time. That is a known economic theory.

A full restaurant for 2 hours or a mostly empty restaurant for 8 hours. We are choosing different places.

But it really depends on what you define as best. It would change depending on what you are looking for.

More Data is always good, but Oztam has given us way less data with this new change. They are forcing advertisers and commentators to look at the bigger numbers and not allowing us to make our own judgement.

I didn't say I wanted to go to the best resturaunt though, I said I wanna know which is the most popular one in the town, which is the same as wanting to know which is the most popular tv show on any given night.

 

[weewilly]

From todays AGE.

News Corp profits rise, Foxtel sheds customers​

"Foxtel’s total paying subscribers fell by 6 per cent across the quarter to 4.32 million ahead of the launch of its new streaming aggregation product Hubbl later this month. Compared to the same time last year, subscriber numbers were flat. Across a single quarter, it is Foxtel’s largest drop in paying customers since introducing its streaming services.

Almost 250,000 Kayo customers cancelled or paused their subscriptions across the quarter, which it put down to a “more difficult summer sports season” alongside inflationary pressures, with traffic on its news titles also down, due to what company chief executive Robert Thomson called “algorithmic aberrations” across major platforms – a trend experienced by the majority of news websites.
Total paying Kayo subscribers as of December 31 were 1.17 million, compared to 1.4 million the September quarter. Paying Binge subscribers rose marginally to 1.47 million, alongside another dip in Foxtel broadcast customers, which follows previous trends.

 

[Bjo187]

From todays AGE.

News Corp profits rise, Foxtel sheds customers​

"Foxtel’s total paying subscribers fell by 6 per cent across the quarter to 4.32 million ahead of the launch of its new streaming aggregation product Hubbl later this month. Compared to the same time last year, subscriber numbers were flat. Across a single quarter, it is Foxtel’s largest drop in paying customers since introducing its streaming services.

Almost 250,000 Kayo customers cancelled or paused their subscriptions across the quarter, which it put down to a “more difficult summer sports season” alongside inflationary pressures, with traffic on its news titles also down, due to what company chief executive Robert Thomson called “algorithmic aberrations” across major platforms – a trend experienced by the majority of news websites.
Total paying Kayo subscribers as of December 31 were 1.17 million, compared to 1.4 million the September quarter. Paying Binge subscribers rose marginally to 1.47 million, alongside another dip in Foxtel broadcast customers, which follows previous trends.

Of course people cancel when the footy season finishes. Interestingly I got an email from foxtel telling me my price will go up $20 next month, they must be trying to recoup some losses.

 

[Rob]

Of course people cancel when the footy season finishes. Interestingly I got an email from foxtel telling me my price will go up $20 next month, they must be trying to recoup some losses.

Yeah, from memory there is always a dip in summer with kayo. I assume the vast majority of subscribers are on month to month, I don't see many 12 month plans advertised outside of digital memberships with AFL or NBL clubs.

 

[The_Wookie]

You do you dude.

Have you looked up ad verecundiam fallacy yet?

Have you looked up the term "thread ban"? I grow real tired of your posting manner in my ratings threads.

Exactly right.

In some spheres you can point to actual expertise that is anchored in substantial knowledge acquired in a defined area of knowledge.

The links provided earlier just looks like industry insiders with little to no analytical grounding.

"just looks like industry insiders with little to no analytical grounding."

Sure. I could point to others but whats the point. These are people that have actually worked in ratings and industry analysis - I could add guys like Rob McKnight to that list as well, but as far as I can tell youve got zero credibility or authority to dismiss anybodys thoughts or opinions on the matter - and thats relevant since you want to nullify everyone elses opinion you disagree with by quetioning everyone elses credentials.

Vickery worked in pulicity at Nine and Seven. Perry is the editor of TV_Blackbox, formerly DeciderTV and has at least a decade in the field. McKnight producess at Nine, and has worked at Seven, Ten and Newscorp. Adam Hoskins is a director of production at Foxtel.

And your experience in the field is what exactly? Keen to know, because your going after everyone elses qualifications and experience with what appears to be little more than your own feelings - and I quote - "little to no analytical grounding". I wait with baited breath.

Why is the dude with a background in TV publicity an "expert" (i.e. About — Vickery Media) in tv Ratings but the CEO of the biggest network not?

Did anyone say that hes not? The CEO of a network has a vested interest in posting the highest figures possible.

Its being reported that Advertisers arent taking the VOZ data seriously until it hits gold standard...and thats a year away. We've been told that BVOD data isnt being reported inaccurately at the moment - it could be as high as double what it currently is. Oh, and Foxtel is back to not being reported at all, except for Foxtel Go.

 

[The Educator]

Have you looked up the term "thread ban"? I grow real tired of your posting manner in my ratings threads.

You keep threatening me, Ultimately it is in your "power" to hand out a bans and thread bans and whatever around here. If you think saying "you do you" is worthy of a thread ban then knock yourself out.

You are very combative and derisive yourself which I can only assume you are mostly unaware of.

I repeatedly pointed you towards the concept of ad vercundiam fallacy because you keeping pointing to others who you assert are authorities.

...and again.....

but as far as I can tell youve got zero credibility or authority to dismiss anybodys thoughts or opinions on the matter - and thats relevant since you want to nullify everyone elses opinion you disagree with by quetioning everyone elses credentials.

This is nonsense. In terms of the personal attack, I am not relying on my "authority" or "credentials". I am relying on the arguments I am making.

I am also not "questioning everyone elses credentials". I am merely dismissing them as an authority I should defer to on the relevance of different TV ratings measures.

If I am suggesting that Tom Vickery has no idea about publicising TV programs in the Australian TV market, I would be questioning his presumably well earned credentials without any basis to. I am clearly not doing that.

In summary, if someone, rather than setting out logical arguments, points to the authority of themselves or someone else, they are making an appeal to authority. That is when the credentials of those people become relevant. It makes it necessary to set out why the person's opinion should not be just taken as fact. That is all I have done.

 

[The_Wookie]

You keep threatening me, Ultimately it is in your "power" to hand out a bans and thread bans and whatever around here. If you think saying "you do you" is worthy of a thread ban then knock yourself out.

Its not just this post and you know it.

You are very combative and derisive yourself which I can only assume you are mostly unaware of.

I repeatedly pointed you towards the concept of ad vercundiam fallacy because you keeping pointing to others who you assert are authorities.

...and again.....

And I dont answer to you, nor can i name names without authorisation. Just because you dont have contacts, doesnt mean the rest of us are bereft of inside information and discussion.

This is nonsense. In terms of the personal attack, I am not relying on my "authority" or "credentials". I am relying on the arguments I am making.

Which is good, because as far as we know you have no credentials or industry experience, yet apparently everyone elses are fair game.

All Ive done is state what im hearing from people in the know - and then posted their thoughts - which you for some reason take umbrage and quote latin at.

I am also not "questioning everyone elses credentials". I am merely dismissing them as an authority I should defer to on the relevance of different TV ratings measures.

That amounts to the same thing. Particularly since you appear to have no credentials or authority of your own.

If I am suggesting that Tom Vickery has no idea about publicising TV programs in the Australian TV market, I would be questioning his presumably well earned credentials without any basis to. I am clearly not doing that.

You did appear to do just that.

In summary, if someone, rather than setting out logical arguments, points to the authority of themselves or someone else, they are making an appeal to authority. That is when the credentials of those people become relevant. It makes it necessary to set out why the person's opinion should not be just taken as fact. That is all I have done.

You seem as unaware of your own behaviour as you accuse others of being.

And Ive had enough. Im locking this thread, and will not re-open another one until the season starts.