« Topics
123
noggin12,616 posts since 26 Jun 2001
In terms of audience share, this years Eurovision was watched in Iceland be 153,000 viewers, a small number, but given Iceland’s population, that’s still an incredible 97.5% share of viewers.


Ignoring the share of viewers that's an insane share of population...
3
UKnews, ChrisPBacon and sbahnhof 7 gave kudos
sbahnhof 791 posts since 29 Oct 2016
Yeah, the population's about 330,000. The broadcaster RUV says 62% of Icelanders saw it, although their country wasn't involved. Eurovision's popular there - there's a history of Iceland's audiences here, translated. You'd certainly hate to be scheduling against it! (Some reports seem to wilfully confuse the share of viewers with the share of population.)

Similar high shares were recorded for Iceland v England 2016, and of course crime dramas Smile
MY83242 posts since 16 Nov 2016
Iceland v England in 2016 WAS a crime drama.

Or a comedy, depending on your nationality.
3
UKnews, Brekkie and sbahnhof 7 gave kudos
sbahnhof 791 posts since 29 Oct 2016
It was all of those things! Surprised What's the Icelandic for schadenfreude?

Iceland might be unique in its TV landscape - being pretty rich with a few main channels for such a small population. And recently there's been a debate on Icelanders getting more free time. So they can, I dunno, watch Eurovision a second time.

Other countries aren't quite as lucky!

Quote:
The world has 7 billion people, and they live in 1.9bn households ... only 1.4bn households have a TV, let alone the internet. And it is the poorer households that tend not to have TV, and they also happen to be the bigger households. So around 2.5bn people don’t even have access to TV.


Unless of course, they all gather round someone else's TV, 10 people per set.

Which, according to the IOC, is what they did in 1992! The Olympics opening ceremonies could have been where the audience one-upmanship started:

Quote:
Organizers began to attribute to the Games event audiences measured in millions in Mexico '68, and the figure has been rising dramatically ever since. Audience estimates of 600 million viewers (e.g. for the Opening Ceremony) for Mexico '68 was followed by 900 million for Munich '72, two billion for Los Angeles '84, three billion for Seoul '88 until it reached 3.5 billion which was readily attributed to Barcelona '92.


Quote:
...the audience for this event would have had to reach 90 per cent in the developed countries [1,111,431,600, and] another 2,388,568,400 in developing countries, which would only have been possible if all 244,000,000 television sets were tuned into this event and the amount of viewers per television set was 9.7 people.


Quote:
China['s] government owned CCTV attributed an audience of 500,000,000 people to the Barcelona '92 Opening Ceremony, which would mean an audience of nearly 45 per cent of the population.

- https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=U_u73VtZcJIC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209


The ceremony was on from 12.30-4am Chinese time. That is bloody impressive. Good on ya, China.

Even 25 years later, that chapter does show how the Olympics, especially events of national interest, can bring many people together to watch. Just not "3.5 billion" of them.

*

But I'd like to believe that millions were watching this satellite HDTV test, or saw Des Lynam being broadcast by accident:

- https://tvforum.uk/forums/post1077727#post-1077727

-
Last edited by sbahnhof 7 on 13 September 2017 7:25am
sbahnhof 791 posts since 29 Oct 2016
Question for anyone with a YouTube channel:
Do your videos get detailed stats on 'unique' viewer numbers? And the average time viewed?

The publicly available number, e.g. "10,000 views", seems a fairly crude measure if it includes people who switch off early – similar to using cumulative audience for a TV show. Would that be a fair comparison?
Rkolsen1,541 posts since 20 Jan 2014
BBC World
I really want to know how the BBC accounts for their 348 million weekly audience reach. How do "dedpuplicate" the data from people who use the web, smartphone, tablet apps and other services?

One station in NYC claims it's the highest rated station in the US because it wins its slots in the largest market in the US. Where in reality it's a station in Scranton that's the ABC affiliate with 91% of the viewership.
1
sbahnhof 7 gave kudos
noggin12,616 posts since 26 Jun 2001
I really want to know how the BBC accounts for their 348 million weekly audience reach. How do "dedpuplicate" the data from people who use the web, smartphone, tablet apps and other services?


My guess - and it is only that - is that you use statistically valid surveys to work out audience behaviour and extrapolate - just as you do with audience ratings in general?
1
sbahnhof 7 gave kudos
sbahnhof 791 posts since 29 Oct 2016
A possible winner:

"1994 ... The World Cup audience over 52 televised games reaches up to 33 billion people."

This being the era before FIFA's estimates were revealed as nonsense, it's impressive chutzpah.

The 'official' audience was rounded down to 32.1 billion. Wink But since the '90s, they've sadly stopped this system of estimation, where each viewer can be counted twice. Or 10 times.

Quote:
"Many organisations seek to inflate the claimed global TV audience of an event by treating all viewers equally, irrespective of whether they spend a couple of hours watching a live broadcast, or just see 10 seconds of coverage on a news clip" (Kevin Alavy)
2
ukpetey and ChrisPBacon gave kudos
DVB Cornwall7,009 posts since 4 Dec 2003
Westcountry Spotlight
I've no real problem with that 1994 World Cup stat, if there were 32.1Billion engagements with the audience, including multiple ones over more than one match over the tournament, it's a reasonable quotable figure. When divided by the 52 matches played it gives a valuable indicator of average reach, 615M per match over a global population of 5.67B, or approx 10percent engaging on average with each game.

Naturally some matches gained a lot more engagements than others. All of these stats need to be drilled down but it's a bonafide quotable figure.