NJ
Little box that plugs into all of the TVs of a few thousand homes in the country, monitors what you watch and sends it all back to BARB overnight, hence why Media Guardian claims that 8million people watched Corrie last night and 8m watched EastEnders instead. After 8 days, the figures go up slightly to account for people who videotaped something and watched it again within seven days of transmission.
Neil Jones
Founding member
toma8473 posted:
Just how do companies measure ratings?
Little box that plugs into all of the TVs of a few thousand homes in the country, monitors what you watch and sends it all back to BARB overnight, hence why Media Guardian claims that 8million people watched Corrie last night and 8m watched EastEnders instead. After 8 days, the figures go up slightly to account for people who videotaped something and watched it again within seven days of transmission.
MI
It is actually entirely possible to be quite accurate scaling even quite low numbers up to the population. They don't simply get the results of 3000 homes and multiply it by 7000 or so; they use statistical techniques to ensure that they are quite close to the real thing.
Mich
Founding member
Jez posted:
I think its a very inaccurate way of measuring the ratings. Some programmes could be getting 20 million in reality but we wouldnt know as they only look at a few 1000 people.
It is actually entirely possible to be quite accurate scaling even quite low numbers up to the population. They don't simply get the results of 3000 homes and multiply it by 7000 or so; they use statistical techniques to ensure that they are quite close to the real thing.
TO
OK I think I get it now 
Thanks to everyone who contributed
I don't think its an accurate way of telling the ratings because them people might have similar interests in programs for example Paul O'Grady might appeal to all of them but Sharon Osbourne is the one that most people without a box watch. In reality, Sharon could well be thrashing Paul in the ratings yet is being slated for having poorer ratings than Paul. I know this example is probably not true but just exchange the show names for any two rival shows.
Thanks to everyone who contributed
I don't think its an accurate way of telling the ratings because them people might have similar interests in programs for example Paul O'Grady might appeal to all of them but Sharon Osbourne is the one that most people without a box watch. In reality, Sharon could well be thrashing Paul in the ratings yet is being slated for having poorer ratings than Paul. I know this example is probably not true but just exchange the show names for any two rival shows.
MS
It is actually entirely possible to be quite accurate scaling even quite low numbers up to the population. They don't simply get the results of 3000 homes and multiply it by 7000 or so; they use statistical techniques to ensure that they are quite close to the real thing.
People tell me this, but i just can't accept that as truth.
Working on that basis means you're assuming that a certain demographic of people are exactly the same as each other. Watch exactly the same programmes, go out at exactly the same time, turn over at the exact same time, enjoy the same type of programming, when in reality that is just not true. Some of the supposed demographic might not even watch TV at all when the ones who are being monitored are. The margin for error is too great. It baffles me as to why they make such big financial decisions based on numbers which cannot possibly be accurate. Surely with the advent of Digital TV we can be a bit more accurate on figures these days?
Mich posted:
Jez posted:
I think its a very inaccurate way of measuring the ratings. Some programmes could be getting 20 million in reality but we wouldnt know as they only look at a few 1000 people.
It is actually entirely possible to be quite accurate scaling even quite low numbers up to the population. They don't simply get the results of 3000 homes and multiply it by 7000 or so; they use statistical techniques to ensure that they are quite close to the real thing.
People tell me this, but i just can't accept that as truth.
Working on that basis means you're assuming that a certain demographic of people are exactly the same as each other. Watch exactly the same programmes, go out at exactly the same time, turn over at the exact same time, enjoy the same type of programming, when in reality that is just not true. Some of the supposed demographic might not even watch TV at all when the ones who are being monitored are. The margin for error is too great. It baffles me as to why they make such big financial decisions based on numbers which cannot possibly be accurate. Surely with the advent of Digital TV we can be a bit more accurate on figures these days?
ES
I have no doubt this is possible - I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of that happening in Sky boxes already, but as we have seen through Sky boxes, subscribers/viewers just don't like having phone lines connected to their STBs... If people aren't willing to connect a phone line, the results suffer with the same problem as the BARB system and have to be up-scaled!
Mr-Stabby posted:
Surely with the advent of Digital TV we can be a bit more accurate on figures these days?
I have no doubt this is possible - I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of that happening in Sky boxes already, but as we have seen through Sky boxes, subscribers/viewers just don't like having phone lines connected to their STBs... If people aren't willing to connect a phone line, the results suffer with the same problem as the BARB system and have to be up-scaled!