Friday, May 23, 2014

Spoilsports

Some irritating news today: Douglas Pucci will no longer post ratings lists at his Son of the Bronx blog. It's not Douglas' fault at all. Instead, the copyright police have cracked down on the ratings posts. You can read all the dismal details from Douglas himself.

I noticed that one link to Douglas' blog in the sidebar - the April 14-20 GSN ratings - was no longer working. Luckily, all the other ratings lists are still intact, but we may not get any more GSN ratings in the future. At least not complete lists.

As Douglas notes, he always acknowledges the Nielsen Company on every post. It seems pretty persnickety to force the lists off his blog, especially because they were the best advertising Nielsen could want. Also, the lists only gave total viewer numbers. There wasn't any detailed demo information, which is what really drives advertising sales.

Here's hoping that Douglas finds a way to continue providing his ratings info. I've always been interested in the numbers - natch, I'm an actuary - and it's annoying that the copyright cops came calling. Especially when the cops seem to be acting against their own best interests.

UPDATE: Speaking of GSN ratings, American Bible Challenge helped the network to a prime time average of 512K viewers last night. Good for GSN but nowhere near the record high ratings the show has gotten before.

7 comments:

  1. Nielsen charges a lot of money for the information it collects. They don't want it given out for free. Would you work for free? You think it's good advertising for them to have their information disseminated for free? Please show me one instance where someone saw Nielsen's information on Son of a Bronx and then spent money with them. That is what advertising is supposed to do, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, I do a lot of work on this blog for free. Anyway, the more Nielsen's name gets disseminated, the better it is for the company. Can I start naming persons who read Son of the Bronx and then go to Nielsen to buy their services? Of course not. I don't even know who reads the blog.

    But the more Nielsen gets their wares advertised, the better it is for the company, especially when Rentrak is starting to encroach on their long-held monopoly. Far from discouraging the dissemination of high-level total viewer numbers, I would encourage the practice if I were running Nielsen...as long as the company was always and prominently mentioned as the source.

    That's just what the company does with TV by the Numbers, for instance. They allow the site to distribute high-level viewer numbers on a lot of shows and networks, and even some limited demo information. So I really don't understand why they're so persnickety about Douglas Pucci.

    Maybe Nielsen figures that TV by the Numbers is much more widely read by people in the business. That may be true. Like I said, I don't have any info on exactly who reads either site. But why crack down so hard on Douglas?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You will make up whatever nonsense you can to defend your inaccurate statements, won't you? This blog is your hobby. Nielsen isn't in business for fun. Neither are you. You have a job and you expect to get paid for it. If someone was stealing your work and giving it away for free, you would stop it if you could, wouldn't you? That's what Nielsen is doing. Nielsen sells their information to television networks, advertisers, and businesses. Not the average consumer that reads your blog (there must be 3 or 4 of us) or the people that are reading Son of the Bronx. And if they are reading it there for free, Nielsen likes that even less. If Nielsen chooses to advertise on sites, they'll do that. I don't think they do, at least none of the sites I frequent. They know far more about their customer than you do. Does TV by the Numbers pay Nielsen? I don't know. But it's their information and they can do with it what they chose. The fact you find it surprising that they don't want it out their for non-paying customers is something I find surprising. But not as surprising as your utter lack of ability to admit when you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Basically, your argument boils down to: I'm wrong and you're right. But that's always your argument. So what's the use of arguing with you? I've had my say, you've had yours. You contributed no additional information in your second rant, just more insults on how clueless I am. Well, I think you're clueless. So we're even. Go find another blogger to insult.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, my argument boils down to the simple point that the facts don't support your assertions. And rather than say, "Yeah, I guess you're right" you continually try and defend them, deny you say what you've said, and just make things up. I don't think I've insulted you, but you continue to demonstrate that you are, to use your word, "clueless." It's ok to say "I really never thought of it that way" and use your seldom read blog as a forum to generate discussion and learning. I think any objective reader of what I've posted would find your calling me "clueless" to be yet another inaccuracy in your thought process.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You will make up whatever nonsense you can to defend your inaccurate statements, won't you?"

    No, you weren't calling me clueless at all. Anyway, the discussion has gone completely off the rails, so it's over for me. I once promised not to respond to your comments, because you quickly move to the kind of personal attack I just quoted. I'll make that promise again, and I'll stick to it this time.

    You're free to comment here all you like, as long as you respect the rules I've posted in "legalities and technicalities" (no obscenity, libel, bigotry, etc.) Just don't expect a response from me. Because there won't be any.

    ReplyDelete