Conference ljsrv1::tv_chatter

    Thanks for posting that Karen.
    
    Finally a way for non-Neilson "families" to be heard!
    
    Joyce

  What is a non-Neilson "family"?

  As I understand, Neilson selects different families from time to time to keep
a booklet (or somehow record what they are watching). I also understand that
they are selected randomly and that anyone is eligible to be selected.

  So is a non-Neison family

   - someone who can't be selected, 
   - someone who hasn't been selected, 
   - someone who was selected but is no longer being recorded,
   - someone who's name is not Neilson?

  When I was a kid, we were selected and kept a booklet for about a month, does
that mean I'm not eligible to join this group? 

  Why is my skeptic alert going off?

  George

    well George there is mroe to the organization but Karne and I discussed
    it off line since we were walking a fuzzy line between informing and
    recruting......
    
    I use the term non-Neilson family to mean that my tastes have generally
    run almost oposite the "Neilson top ten" and even after a college
    course in TV/Radio and how ratings influence and affect what we watch I
    still think I need to have *my* voice heard.
    
    This person who owns/runs this organization is interviewing Sharen
    Gless who's show, Cagney and Lacey was the first (I believe 1st) whose
    shoe was resurected after a flood of viewer mail.  It seemed that C&L
    didne't fair well in the Neilson ratings so it got dumped.  I was one
    of the hundreds of thousands of C&L fans but never took the time to
    write - hey just the way things go.. but now I know that my voice can
    be heard (look at Matlock - brought back to life by another network)
    adn now there is an organization - a FOR-profit (hense the socliciting
    issue I mentioned) that is organized and willing to inform the viewers
    of how to voice our opinions, and where to go with these opinions.
    
    I will post the full message Karen sent to me for more information: 
    
    BTW George - I tought your tone was flip and argumentative and just
    because you were one of the very very few who got to participate in the
    Neilson ratings doesn't mean much to me.
    
    and for the record - EVERYONE who owns a tv is eligible
    
    Joyce

    George,
    there is nothing "skeptical" about this. But you are entitled to your
    opinion.  I have been a part of this group for sometime before, and it
    helped me to keep some of my favorite programs on the air that were
    going to be axed.  One of their newsletters gave me all the information
    regarding who it was important to write to ex: sponsors, networks,
    media, how to write those letters without being overly aggressive
    and without "attack" to the network for making such a decision. The
    reality that "alot" if not most of the times, the network will not
    read the letters, BUT they do read their local newspapers, etc.  They
    offer alot of information as to what you can do to help support your
    favorite programs.
    
    I am sorry, but personally, I am sick to think that I and "manY'
    people both young and old that I know have never been selected by
    the Nielsens.  And I personally have decided that I will do everything
    within my power to get my word across, and to be heard. I have a right
    as well all the viewers out there to be "counted."  It is not my
    decision to "not" participate in the Nielsens...they have decided that
    for me!!  I even called them and asked to participate, that was 4 years
    ago, and nothing yet.  
    
    This organization does not mean that you must not have participated in
    the Nielsens, or are currently participating, or going to.  I mean
    as you said, you remember when you were alot younger being selected. So
    once in you lifetime, you had some what of an effect and counted as 
    a nielsen number, which in turn contributed to the ranks, shares, etc.
    Thus, enabling a Chief of Programming to decide what stays on and
    what goes off. But, only once, did you directly have your television
    programming considered.
    
    For me, I want to ensure that I am participating in a constant medium
    that keeps working.  I have had enough of my programs that I loved go
    off the air, and with frustration and anger I always accepted it. But
    I will not just sit there like a lump and do nothing anymore. I will
    be heard.
    
    I am writing this not for my benefit, but for all of you who have felt
    the same way as I did, upset that your programs are being cancelled
    and you "think" there is nothing that can be done...Well I am telling
    you there is alot that you can do.
    
    As I said before, for more information, please contact me off line. The
    purpose for posting this was for people truly interested in supporting
    their favorite programs and to be heard, not to debate the genuinity
    of it.  The organization exists, it has been now for 3 years, it has
    been successful in campaigning for television shows. In the end, some
    still were cancelled, however, some were given additional epsiodes, and
    renewed for another season in order to give it another shot.
    
    Karen
    
    
    

    More info on VIEWER'S VOICE from Karen's original mail message to me:
    
    
    "I just got off the phone with the President of an organization called
    Viewer's Voice.  The groups purpose is to bring the attention to the
    Network big wigs that there is a large majority of people whom do not
    get heard or "counted" when it comes to identifying the number of 
    viewers that watch TV programs.  This group sends out newsletters to its 
    members telling them what is going on regarding TV shows, what ones are 
    in danger of cancellation, where to write and what to do to get heard 
    etc.  The President Sharon Rhode who called me today, was telling me she 
    will be flying to Illinois to mett Sharon Gless (Former Cagney on 
    Cagney and LAcey.) to interview her fo the newsletter.  I wanted to put 
    a note in here advising the noters of this group and if they wanted to 
    write to the organization I could list the address.
    
    I wanted to check with you first because where the group does have a
    yearly dues charge of $18, I did not know if I would be violating a DEC
    policy, if it is looked at as a solicitation.  I could word it in such a 
    way that I explain the organization, and just tell people that for more
    infromation write to  this address...  then when they get a formal 
    letter and brochure from them explaining their group, they will advise 
    them of the dues."
    
    Joyce

  I don't think you understand how sampling works. In fact, you do get counted
by the Neilson method, even if you don't get a booklet. 

  Basically sampling depends on a statistical model that predicts the viewing
habits of the population by measuring a representative sample. By selecting the
sample size they can generally come within a 3-5% margin of error. In other
words, you may not have been measured, but there is a 97% chance that people
like you were measured at a rate that was representative within the population.

  Not it appears that the method described in .0 is measuring something else,
namely people who are devoted to watching particular programs, and yes they
probably are interested in that. In fact the main reason they brought back Star
Trek and made movies was that Paramount realized that although the total number
of viewers was small, they were very devoted and would watch faithfully and
would go to the movies several times each. 

  Also, you don't quite understand what the word skeptic means. When I say my
"skeptic alert" goes off, I don't mean that the group is skeptical, I mean that
I am skeptical. For example, say I didn't like Cagny and Lacy and wanted to try
to talk the network into removing them from the air to free up a slot for an
extra night of network baseball, would they be willing to help me with that or
are they predisposed to promoting the "right" kind of programming? 

  Skeptical does not mean that I believe they would not help me, it just means
that I am not convinced that they would help me.

  George

    Please don't work under the assumption we don't know how sampling
    works.
    
    and even though I got the impression your note was directed at Karen's
    response I must say - I STILL don't think Neilson numbers accuratly
    reflect the number of viewers who watch particular shows.  *I* have
    personally had a course abd have all the figures, and percentages blah
    blah blah that the rating system is based on....and did you know that
    if a census population numbers and Neilson numebrs don't "match" the
    theroy  then the percentages are "shaved" and whole response are
    discounted?  I wish I had saved that text book from class - I was
    appauled...but the teacher who has worked in local radio and tv for
    about 20 years confirmed this and stated it was accepted and 'kept
    inmind' when viewing numbers - yeash right!  Also - Neilson is not
    always recorded usinga log book - not very accurate either - so how do
    you account for shows taht are watched in groups?  Once statistic I
    remeber is that for a population of over 300,000 (I'm pretty sure it
    was 300,000) people a sample of 4,000 are used to decide what I have 
    for a choice to view.
    
    Each time I take the time to review teh top 10 on the Neilson list I
    cringe - since most I've never seen - or tried and couldn't stand to
    watch or just weren't my cup of tea.
    
    And George the VV - from my understanding gives teh members the tools
    for informing the powers that be of our likes and dislikes (not
    available in the first memo posted) it lets us know - in advance which
    shows are in jeopardy (go ahead write and say  yeah take itoff the
    air!) it tells you who the sponsors are and where to write to them
    etc... so yeah - you want to get rid of that awful 1/2 sitcom with
    thenot so cutsie kid - then write to teh sponsors and producers - the
    things is this newsletter seems to give us the tools - what we do with
    them is our choice.
    
    Joyce

    I belonged to a "viewer's lobbying group" of sorts for a couple of
    years: Viewers for Quality Television. (I don't know if Viewers Voice
    is related.) When it began, the concept of encouraging mass mailings
    from viewers to networks, advertisers, etc. was fairly new - phenomena
    such as the Star Trek write-ins, etc., had pre-dated it, but were aimed
    at individual shows, whereas the VQT attempted to get more people
    interested in saving/encouraging more shows ("I'll write for yours if
    you'll write for mine"). In any case, at first they seemed to have a
    pretty good success rate, claiming to have saved (among others) "Cagney
    & Lacey" (which makes me wonder if Viewers Voice is the same group
    under a new name)... However, after several years and a number of
    campaigns, it began to appear that the networks weren't responding as
    well; perhaps the bottom line indicated that, no matter how many people
    wrote letters, the "saved" shows still weren't producing enough
    revenue. At about the time when I dropped out of the group, the advice
    they were giving was to write individual letters to networks,
    advertisers, etc., about any show (or trend, whatever) that you wanted
    to encourage, but *not* to mention that you were involved in any way
    with a group, as the "group mailings" were not valued as highly.
    
    So I'd say that such a lobbying or organizing group might be worth
    joining *if* they're up front about what can be achieved, and/or if you
    enjoy it (VQT had a fun newsletter); but if what you want is to get
    your opinion across to the folks who pay the money to put the shows on
    the air, you might be better off saving the entrance fee and using it
    for stamps when you write your letters.
    
    For what it's worth,
    -b

  So let me get this straight. Advertisers, who spend millions of dollars to
have ads run on TV, rely on a set of statistics that are flawed. And if I
wanted to get a show like Cagney and Lacy booted off the air to make room for
baseball, a profit making group that works with Sharon Glass would be pleased
as punch to invite me to their convention and help me out. 

  And if I find that I'm not ready to believe this or that I'm a bit suspicious
of this profit making group, then I'm flip and out to impress people with my
Neilson booklet. 

  The skeptic alert is becoming a skeptic alarm, my ears are ringing. 

  George 

    .8
    
    I had been involved in VQT as well. I did enjoy their newsletter. This
    group is headed by Dorothy Swanson.  
    
    I was at the library last night, and copied a 12 page article in the
    Atlantic Magazine regarding the Nielsen's and I have only read the
    first couple of pages and was actually impressed to see that The 3
    Major Networks NBC, CBS, ABC had told the Nielesens that they find them
    to be inaccurate as well. However, because this system is I guess
    "better" than nothing, then they continue to use them.  I have not read
    it all, but it went on to talk about the advertisers opinions on it. It
    had said that for a long time, the networks have relied on the Nielsens
    soley, but this article which was dated in 1992, expressed
    disatisfaction from the Networks.  I really was surprised to read that.
    
    Goerge, in regards to your question as to whether they would help you
    if you wanted to rally "for" more baseball, and against a show that
    they are supporting, is based on the amount of members that are
    requesting the same thing. They also stress that although you may not
    find someone else's choice of a favorite program, to be one of your
    own, if enough members would like to rally for it, then they ask that
    you consider that and help support them. The choice is yours.  I
    believe the main objective here is for the people that are not counted
    in the Nielsen's and want to have their say.  In addtion, then
    encourage you to mention that you are a member of Viewer's Voice when
    writing to the media, networks, etc.  
    
    I don't know "everything" about this organization, as I said before I
    joined it for awhile, then got lazy and did not continue, but recently
    I came across an old newsletter and it renewed my interest and I am
    going to join it again.  If you have questions that you feel you need
    answered, then feel free to write to:
    
    		Sharon Rhode
                Viewers Voice 
		P.O. Box 27758
    		West Allis, WI 53227-0758

    Interesting article in todays USA Today paper.
    
    * reprinted without permission:
    
    		RATING NIELSEN POOR, NETWORKS LOOK FOR CHANGE
    
    By Alan Bash
    USA TODAY
    
    Three networks frustrated with the research they get from the A.C.
    Nielsen Co., announced Thursday a multimillion dollar deal with a
    New Jersy firm to find new ways of measuring TV viewing levels.
    
    "Television programs are scheduled and cancelled.... (and) advertising
    time is bought and sold on the basis of audience measurement," says
    Nicholas Schiavone, NBC Vice PResident for media and marketing.  The
    current research, he says "is not good enough, not reliable enough."
    
    Among complaints:  Nielsen tests in 4,000 homes overstate older viewers
    and under-represent younger ones.
    
    SRI - Statistical Research Inc. - now testing parts of the project in
    New Jersey, will pick an area of the country later this year where
    they'll try the new system in 500 homes.  SRI says its system will:
    
    	o  Send signals over existing wires and won't use extra wiring
    	   that Nielsen homes need.
    	o  Make it simpler for members of the household to punch
    	   information into a keypad about who's watching what.
        o  Report information more quickly than Nielsen does.
        
    
    ABC, CBS, NBC, and the National Association of Broadcasters made the
    deal with SRI and are inviting FOX, syndicators and cable networks to
    join.
    
    Nielsen spokesman Jack Loftus says he doesn't see SRI as a potential
    competitor, adding that Nielsen is "committed to change" and will work
    with SRI and the networks to improve its service.
    
    SRI, which has done past studies for the networks, also researched
    radio listenership.
    
    
    END OF STORY.
    
    
    Karen