4.+Program+Evaluation

__ ** In this space include comments, questions, or points of discussion concerning strategies of PROGRAM EVALUATION (ratings, focus groups, etc.)** __ I have been constantly searching for the Jimmy Fallon video I was talking about last week and cannot find anything about it. I have watched Fallon this week, and I have not heard him mention anything about the Nielson Ratings game or the outcome of it either. Ever since Fallon mention the idea of the game last Monday, he has not mentioned a single thing since. I tuned in last Friday 11/11/11 in the hopes of hearing something about it. The only thing that I thought was different about the show was after his opening monologue, he made a clear effort to say something key. “If you’re watching the show for the first time, my name is Jimmy Fallon”. The crowd laughs but Fallon is completely serious. He then goes on to introduce his band and his announcer/sidekick. He also says, “We have a lot of fun on our show and we’re so happy to have you here if you’re watching for the first time, so thank you so much for watching.” I watch Fallon a good amount, and I have never really heard him take the time to say something like this. I have absolutely no idea why I can’t seem to find anything more about the ratings game that he mentioned. I did find one blog that had two people talking about this, and they mentioned how they found it uncalled for that Fallon was “begging” for ratings. Perhaps he received too much criticism so decided not to mention the idea of the game again. On the chance that new viewers did hear about this and tune in, maybe that’s why he decided to introduce himself and his show. So unfortunately, this is the only update I have for the Fallon Ratings Game. (Elizabeth Ziulkowski 11/17/11)

Shows such as American Idol, X Factor, Glee and The Voice have greatly influenced the music industry. For instance, since these shows are extremely popular, more and more people now want to purchase either the winner or contestants CDs after the shows air. Once the contestants become popular with the public, people start to love one person in particular and want to hear more of them, so in turn they purchase CDs, upload songs on iTunes and purchase tickets to their concerts. Music reality shows are highly competitive and cause the public to choose sides and pick a favorite. Once a favorite is chosen, anything that the individual does after the show within the music industry has the ability to do very well. On the other hand, Glee is not a competitiion show but the music incorporated within the series has increased sales for GLEE dvds, concerts and CDS. (sarah davis 11/15/11)

I was watching Jimmy Fallon on Monday night when something that we have discussed in class definitely caught my attention. Fallon said he recently found out about something called Nielson families. Fallon briefly goes on to explain what Nielson is and what Nielson families are. Fallon, being the known comedian that he is, challenged American with a very interesting feat. He has created the Nielson Ratings Game where he is asking all of his viewers, specifically those who may be Nielson families, to tune in this Friday 11/11/11 to watch //Late Night//. He wants to get the highest rating their show has ever gotten. Adam Sandler and Beyoncé are guests on Late Night tomorrow, so he’s hoping that will help bring in the viewers. While this is extremely comical, it is also extremely interesting. I tried to look online for Fallon’s weekly ratings and it seems it is usually around a .6 rating. Lately, Fallon seems to be beating Craig Ferguson who hosts //The Late Late Show// on CBS on during the same time slot. I have looked every day since I saw this episode and cannot find the clip of Fallon talking about this challenge he gave to America. Every video I find that seems to be it, says the video was taken down. When I re-watch the episode online on NBC.com and Hulu, they skip over that part. Regardless, it was still funny to see Fallon beg for these Nielson families to watch. I plan on tuning in tomorrow to see if anything else is mentioned. (Elizabeth Ziulkowski, 11/10/11)
 * Elizabeth--Fascinating. Can you please update us on this for next week? You'll earn a wiki point if you tell us what happened next. there's a point in it for anyone if they can find the YOU TUBE video of Fallon saying this. Or if you can find whether it actually helped his NTI rating. Dr. P 11/14/11

Shows like American Idol, The Voice, and Glee have changed the recording and music industry forever. In order for artists to get their feet in the door to the industry, they had to have pure talent and connections. Now almost anyone can audition for these shows, even if they have no singing ability whatsoever. It has benefited the industry by scouting out true talent and making the industry a little more competitive in that sense. In addition, there are a lot of musical covers for popular songs. (Allyson Testa, 11/10/11)

Many people criticize much of today's programming saying that it is too stereotypical, too violent, and over sexualized. While I agree that programming is becoming more controversial, I also believe that it has to be in order to increase ratings. This is because people want more unrealistic content today, so that they can be more entertained. I have noticed from my own personal experiences that, as time progresses, I get bored with the same type of content and look for more controversy. (Peter O'Daniel, 11/1/2011)

I found this article about neilson [Nielsen...Dr. P] ratings I thought would be useful. I wanted to see just how sports stacked up against other forms. It's amazing how much of the ratings share sports take up. I would think looking at this, that NBC CBS etc would shut down their production companies and start inventing new sports...

@http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-top-10s-and-trends-for-2010/

[ctshay, 10.19.2011]

I investigated the parent company NBC Universal and discovered that they produce programming that supports 24 cable networks including popular networks like USA, Bravo, and E!. Additionally, they offer programming on 7 broadcast platforms including their ONOs [this is what it sounds like, but the abbreviation is actually O&Os...as in Owned and Operated-s, Dr. P] and Telemundo. With this excessive reach of conglomeration, a viewer could watch 24 different cable networks and think they are exposing themselves to a plethora of ideas and essentially only receive one viewpoint. (Carly Leonard, 10/19/2011)
 * Fantastic post Carly, especially your evaluation about the lack of diverse voices on the air. Dr. P 10/23/11

I found it surprising that the demographic makeup of public television almost exactly matches the national profile of the United States. Because noncommercial stations are not preoccupied with gaining large numbers of viewers, they are better able to provide programming that suits the interests of the local public. Instead of appealing to mass audiences with generalized programming in attempts of gaining advertisers, public television can provide programming tailored to their specific viewing public. (Carly Leonard, 10/17/2011)

After Mondays class, I too, decided I would not want to fill out a diary. It almost seems pointless. In my opinion, this is not a completely accurate way to determine focus groups .... If I was given a journal, I do not think I would put the time and effort into the journal. As we discussed, members of the youth population would most likely forget to give the journal back or fill it out in a quick way. In class, we also discussed the annoyance of telemarketing calls. Many house holds refuse to take part in these surveys and tell the caller to remove their name from a list. I do not mean to post this in a negative manner, but it was a topic that I found very interesting (in a confusing way). I am very curious for tomorrow's lecture to hear the opposing ways to conduct these surveys. I am curious to see changes that will take place in the near future. With the constant changes in programming and the growing rate of technology, I am shocked that this is the most accurate way! [Anna Lassalle ... 9/13/11]
 * Trust me Anna, no one is more negative when describing diary data collection methods than Program Directors! I hope you are a little more encouraged about the industry following our discussion of the PPM (Arbitron) and the LPM (Nielsen) Dr. P 9/18

The Nielson ratings system seems to be valid if there are enough households to sample. However, I think the process itself is too complicating and tedious that many people who actually can represent 60,000 households may not be a normal viewer. In class, we talked about how the Nielson C3 standard is getting old because cable companies (MSO's) are getting more accurate data. Since MSO's are binary connections (meaning that they send signals and also recieve signals), the feedback they acquire seems to be more accurate. Since more and more people are subscribing to cable television, I wonder what strategies Nielson are providing to continue on with their research. (Motomasa Tanioka 9/16/2011)

I believe that using the C3 standard is an appropriate way of capturing viewing. Since the creation of DVR, it was very hard for Nielsen to capture viewing of those programs that were recorded by the public. If i were a program director i would incorporate these ratings and statistics in my rating scale to know the demographic of people that are not home that have to record the show. This can help increase ratings just as it can decrease ratings. Having a way like the C3 standard to monitor recorded programs is very helpful for companies to know the demographic of people that are recording and do watch at a later time.(Shawn Telvi 9-14-2011)

After today's class, I realized that I would never want to fill out a nielsen diary. Even though there have been shows that I absolutely loved and would have done anything for them to stay on the air, I doubt that I would agree to filling out a diary in order to do so. I am glad that the diaries are rare nowadays because in my opinion, someone must be extremely bored or have nothing better to do than sit down and write what they are viewing everytime they watch tv (which could be quite often). As for the other ways of calculating ratings, I would however allow for some type of equipment to be set up on my television if it means that I do not have to do anything. If the equipment required me to press a button and punch in information I can highly guarantee that I would forget everytime and no valid information would be calculated. All in all, I feel that ratings are hard to calculate unless the individuals do not have to do anything. (sarah davis 9.12.11)

I believe that the C3 standard as of now is an appropriate way to truly capture viewing. Although, there are now many different sites that can be utilized to watch television, I believe the average user still relies on the television and DVR box primarily. By montering the DVR box and if the program has been watched within three days of recording, Nielson is already solving a huge problem that was presented to them when the DVR box was introduced. Many people did not believe the ratings were accurate because of the DVR boxes but now that they are able to monitor the DVR behavior the next step will be to find some sort of way to keep track of sites like hulu and itunes. For the time being, the C3 standard seems to be the most accurate way to track viewers, therefore as a Programming Director I would utilize it until a more advanced technology is created. (Ian Lefkowitz, 9-12-2011)

If I were a program director, I think I would advocate the C3 standard because as far as monitoring viewing via TV sets specifically, it is a insightful enough. However, as someone who utilizes sites like Hulu, iTunes, and Netflix, to a similar extent that I watch TV, I think that that information would be very helpful and incredibly telling on a grand scale and thus should also be taken into account. But as of today, the mediums are still very different. As time goes on and TV and computer become more and more integrated, technologies will come onto the scene for mass consumption, that are more appropriate methods of data mining across a "variety of platforms" and when that occurs, C3 may then become outdated and a less accurate predictor for measurements of viewership. (Alyssa Rossman-Rorman 9/11/11)

I think that broadcast stations should have to adhere to the regulation of airing 3 hours of educational television a day. However, I also agree with Jordan that it doesn't necessarily have to be targeted to kids over the age of maybe 11 or 12, because by 13 many kids have moved onto seeking out more mature subject matter. Continuing on, please note that I direct my opinion to the aforemetioned, younger age group. While there are numerous cable channels dedicated entirely to serving educational purposes, not every home has cable TV nor can everyone necessarily afford it. There should still be reliable educational television programming available to that viewing segment regardless of whether it is a decreasing population, because at the end of the day it is a population percentage none the less. All kids should have similar opportunity to be exposed to TV directed toward positive edu. development, especially in an age when TV viewership among kids continues to grow and becomes routine from an early age. (Alyssa Rossman-Rorman 9/11/11)

I don’t think that broadcasters should halve to air a certain time frame of educational television at kids 16 or younger because starting around the age of 13 kids aren’t seeking educational television, they are seeking programs that have answers to questions they cant get at home, such as drinking and sex. I wouldn’t call educational programming outdated, however, the age listed is way to old. Unfortunately, kids today are much more advanced than anyone would like them to be. There is too much exposure to material on television that kids 16 want to see versus the educational programs that the broadcasters want them to watch. Jordan Kay 9/9/11

When I looked at the Parent's Television Council website I first clicked on the family guide to primtime tv. On this page, parents are able to see exactly what shows airing that night are appropriate (in their terms) for their children to watch. The guide is color coordinated and the red is the "worst" meaning the shows contain sex, eplicit dialogue and violent content. From there, yellow, green and blue mean different things and green is the "best" for family-friendly shows. It is interesting to see how on the specific guide that I view, only 2 days out of the week have 1 show each that is labeled green. Every other show is said to be inappropriate or non-suitable for children. This site is very useful for parents who care about what their children watch and being able to see daily information based on the current television shows. (sarah davis 9/8/11)

Media today that would fail the “bad tendency test” would be any that goes against the war in Iraq and Middle East because that material would be considered unpatriotic. Also, any material that denounces or questions the president would also be considered unpatriotic. Additionally, any material that goes against current laws and regulations would also be banned including programs that discuss gay marriage and abortion rights. Under a democratic government this test would be very contradictory because as a democracy we stand for freedom of speech and self-expression. The bad tendency test would stifle this free speech and censor what material is delivered through media. (Carly Leonard, 09/07/2011)

I have learned about the Nielsen ratings system in many of my classes through both Journalism and Telecommunications, but to this day I can't fully grasp it as an effective snapshot into what American households are watching. While the age-old critique of sample sizes being too small are still out there, the new technologies of DVR, the web, and illegal streaming obviously make these numbers even harder to track. If a show like Arrested Development was on now, I would probably not be able to watch it on a Monday at 8pm, but would instead go to an illegal website and watch it there hours later. This is probably true for many of my friends as well. Multiply that around the country and lets say the show gets a 1.9 rating. They would think it was a flop. Instead it could be the most popular show on television but they would never know. So in conclusion, I don't put much stock into these ratings/shares as I wouldn't even be counted in many of them. (Joshua Bowles, 09/09/2011)

When I was in my T344 class we learned that as time goes on there become more and more channels and different ways of viewing them, such as the addition of cable to broadcast networks, and now direct TV. With this increase in channels that one can view "hit shows" have had a lower share ratings, which has increased the amount of "hit shows." For example, in the 70's the Brady Bunch, Startreck, and Giligan's Island were pretty much the only hit shows. Now we have a ton of hit shows. ---Peter O'Daniel

It sounds as if this Nielsen household really appreciated the advancements in technology. Personally, I would be a lot more willing to cooperate with the Peoplemeter than with a diary because the recording process would be a lot less tedious. Additionally, the Nielsen viewer said he appreciated the fact that his viewing habits mattered. However, before reading this blog, I never realize the impact that one household has on the ratings of a program and the influence that one additional person makes. I didn’t fathom that a homeowner could lie (however unethical this maybe) to say more people were watching their favorite programs which could potentially skew the results tremendously. I suppose Nielsen needs to consider the integrity of the people in there sample. (Carly Leonard, 09/12/11)