The funny part is I posted the link to the actual report that answers all the questions about the data and methodology used in the report. It's obvious this poster has chosen not to look at the specifics, but attack it on general principle. "It's a survey, I don't agree with the findings, therefore it's wrong and there are no real facts." That logic doesn't work.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Best Way To Reach Millennials? Television!
- Thread starter Kelly A
- Start date
The funny part is I posted the link to the actual report that answers all the questions about the data and methodology used in the report. It's obvious this poster has chosen not to look at the specifics, but attack it on general principle. "It's a survey, I don't agree with the findings, therefore it's wrong and there are no real facts." That logic doesn't work.
You don't know that. You are assuming factual reporting, correct analysis and presentation. People other than me have reached a similar conclusion: "It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point. The term was popularized in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
You are not understanding my post. I used my kids as an example and also stated their many friends were similar. In other words, the conclusion of the study did not match my personal observations. Pure and simple. I really doubt my family and their friends are that different from the norm.
Semantics aside, Nielsen has a vested interest in the broadcast industry.
No assumption. All of the major polls have their results observed and authenticated by outside services. Same with the information in this study. Are you familiar with the scientific method? There are ways to authenticate and certify results. That's what happened here. Meanwhile, you're countering documented facts with your own personal experience. Similarities once again with the president, who has access to internationally respected intelligence, yet prefers his own personal opinion.
But the study says they are. And MY personal observation says they are. Not saying my personal observation is documented fact, but your observations aren't documented or authenticated in any way. I have no way of knowing if you're either lying or if you even have kids at all. Understand?
No, it has a vested interest in providing accurate data to the advertising industry. Very, very different.
Ratings and ratings-related studies are done principally to enable advertisers and their agencies to have pricing and targeting metrics so that their campaigns will be as successful as possible. Any data source that does not fulfill that purpose will be abandoned.
"Birds of a feather flock together".
If your family is composed of outliers* they likely know other outliers. In syndicated research, you will be counted but users of the research will ignore you.
The classic example of the outlier is the person who will consume garlic flavored ice cream again after once trying it. But if research shows less than 0.1% of consumers like that flavor, and you only have space in the store freezer cases for 31 different flavors, you will choose not to stock that flavor.
Outliers tend to associate with other outliers. So it is likely that members of your family gravitate towards other people who don't have mass, mainstream preferences.
Outlier: A precise term for those people who are way, way outside the range of behaviour. For example, if we find that 90% of a universe falls within a range of +/- 10 on a scale of 100, then someone who is off by 50 on that scale is an outlier... because, when graphed, that person lies way outside the responses for the 90% who are in that narrow 20 point spread. We have a variety of statistical techniques that we use to identify outliers, and in proprietary research it's usual to look at results with the outliers purged from the dataset as those influences will actually have a negative effect on pleasing that 90% "vast" majority.
I'm not saying Landtuna is doing this, but I've found that many people confuse their own experience with the "average" or "norm." I like cars, so I also comment on a couple of car forums. A recent subject was the unreliability of Ford cars. Three of their models are the "Least Reliable" in their class according to Consumer Reports, which surveys car owners annually. One responder said that CR, and other ratings were wrong because he has one of those Ford models, and it's been "perfect." He didn't understand that the survey would include a range of owners from those who had the worst lemons imaginable, to those with perfect cars without a single problem - and that the ratings were based on the average experience by Ford owners.
Like David I place high confidence on Nielsen's ratings data. But, I also think this data is impossible. If it is to be believed, the average American spends every waking moment either working, commuting to work, or watching television.
There is a solution to this conundrum. Consider people who do not work, or only work part-time, or work from home. Close to 40% of Americans fall in one of those buckets, and can watch way more television than the rest of us. Or mega sports fans, who might watch 3+ of sports weeknights and more on weekends.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Tuna's kids are outliers. I think what's going on is multiple types of TV viewers are being smashed together into one figure and the number of people who look at that broad average and say "By gosh, that's me!" is pretty small.
There is a solution to this conundrum. Consider people who do not work, or only work part-time, or work from home. Close to 40% of Americans fall in one of those buckets, and can watch way more television than the rest of us. Or mega sports fans, who might watch 3+ of sports weeknights and more on weekends.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Tuna's kids are outliers. I think what's going on is multiple types of TV viewers are being smashed together into one figure and the number of people who look at that broad average and say "By gosh, that's me!" is pretty small.
As the previous poster said, therein lies the way a bell curve works. It's not black and white. There are lots of variations. That's why it's hard to distill a multi-page study into one sentence. Anyone who wants to understand the study should read the entire study, and not simply take the one sentence headline personally.
The original statement was "the best way to reach Millennials is through television". I disagreed with that statement.
Messrs: Big A and DE - Both of you have deep roots in broadcasting and I fully understand why you would defend this type of report. I don't have a dog in this fight so I could care less. But I don't need to be taken to the wood shed every time I post an opinion so from now on I will just ignore your responses and would not be upset if you were to ignore mine.
Messrs: Big A and DE - Both of you have deep roots in broadcasting and I fully understand why you would defend this type of report. I don't have a dog in this fight so I could care less. But I don't need to be taken to the wood shed every time I post an opinion so from now on I will just ignore your responses and would not be upset if you were to ignore mine.
The report doesn't need defending. It is well documented, and well laid out. As compared to your personal opinion, which has no documentation at all.
No one has said you can't state your opinion. The problem isn't you posting your opinion. The problem is that you're attacking a report you haven't actually read, saying it's based on assumptions, which isn't true, and trying to equate your opinion with a heavily researched and documented study. And you simply don't understand the difference. Maybe you can't accept that there are people who are different from you, who have different experiences than you, and their experiences were included in a national study that covered people in other geographic areas, people with different economic and educational backgrounds, and different interests than you or your family. That's what this study demonstrates.
The subject is correct. Based on the study, the best way to reach Millennials is through television. They document what percentage of those milliennials are reached. If you read the report, you'd see it's not 100%. So the behavior of your kids and their friends is covered by the statistics in this study. What you're saying is "Television is not the best way to reach my kids and their friends." That's a different report. If you'd like to present it in a scientific manner, with numbers and details, we'd all love to read it. But that's not what you're doing.
The keyword here is "average".
Let's say that at the 8 PM prime time hour that 60% of American adults are using some form of video. There are hundreds of cable and satellite options as well as Internet options. But the fact is that just a couple of dozen options represent about 80% of the viewing.
Yet those few dozen options may range from sports discussions to sci-fi to Mash re-runs. But together, they are the "average".
Classic "don't confuse me with the facts" response.
Or my favorite recent term: Alternative facts..
- Status