How do media companies know who and why is watching?

[thrasherpix]

Another post got me to wondering on this. I expect it was different in the 90s, but I'm especially curious of then (though also interested in modern methods--and also methods before the internet started to get popular).

This is genuine curiosity. I believe that they can (though I don't know if they're as accurate as they think), and ranges from book covers to shows and tropes.

I know there's truth to it, especially in these modern times, but best not to go into that (or the new problems that have arisen). But modern methods wouldn't have worked for the 90s.

I don't know how they count for some who turn away from what they determine is the best marketable strategy. Like I stopped buying a series I loved (at least without careful consideration and talking to others, losing them sales) because of all the false advertisement (and just not being true to canon so that I doubt the writer ever even saw or read the series before writing a show or book for it, though I suppose it was deemed popular by a corporate focus group), but maybe they can tell that they gain more audience members (thus more money) than they lose, I don't know.

One post claimed that Spike in a wheelchair lost viewers, especially by male viewers. How was this determined/estimated? Could it be that other aspects of the show were the cause, or even competing shows (or just real life) drew viewers away instead? How did they determine that in the 90s? Just how is this research done, especially back then? Anyone know?


Also, how many times was this shown to be wrong? That is they thought they had a winning formula based on their research but flopped pushing forward.

 

[NotASlayer]

I had heard something about how it was done in the UK and managed to pull up this: Barb Audiences - Wikipedia

It looks like they monitor a bunch of homes for what they view and extrapolate out from there. And it looks like this one only does some channels.

 

[TheMaster666]

Another post got me to wondering on this. I expect it was different in the 90s, but I'm especially curious of then (though also interested in modern methods--and also methods before the internet started to get popular).

This is genuine curiosity. I believe that they can (though I don't know if they're as accurate as they think), and ranges from book covers to shows and tropes.

I know there's truth to it, especially in these modern times, but best not to go into that (or the new problems that have arisen). But modern methods wouldn't have worked for the 90s.

I don't know how they count for some who turn away from what they determine is the best marketable strategy. Like I stopped buying a series I loved (at least without careful consideration and talking to others, losing them sales) because of all the false advertisement (and just not being true to canon so that I doubt the writer ever even saw or read the series before writing a show or book for it, though I suppose it was deemed popular by a corporate focus group), but maybe they can tell that they gain more audience members (thus more money) than they lose, I don't know.

One post claimed that Spike in a wheelchair lost viewers, especially by male viewers. How was this determined/estimated? Could it be that other aspects of the show were the cause, or even competing shows (or just real life) drew viewers away instead? How did they determine that in the 90s? Just how is this research done, especially back then? Anyone know?


Also, how many times was this shown to be wrong? That is they thought they had a winning formula based on their research but flopped pushing forward.

Market research much the same as any other, I'd imagine. Probably had focus groups, in conjunction with overall viewer ratings.

 

[Stake fodder]

I had heard something about how it was done in the UK and managed to pull up this: Barb Audiences - Wikipedia

It looks like they monitor a bunch of homes for what they view and extrapolate out from there. And it looks like this one only does some channels.

Yes, in the US there was a company called Nielsen that would ask to place boxes in the homes of representative viewers that would track what they watched. They also asked families to keep diaries, so they would know if the teen son watched a show vs. a 40-yo mom.

According to Wikipedia, Nielsen still tracks viewng, though its methods have changed with the times.

Nielsen Media Research - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Plasma]

Yes, in the US there was a company called Nielsen that would ask to place boxes in the homes of representative viewers that would track what they watched. They also asked families to keep diaries, so they would know if the teen son watched a show vs. a 40-yo mom.

According to Wikipedia, Nielsen still tracks viewng, though its methods have changed with the times.

Nielsen Media Research - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Exactly this.

They use Nielsen for general numbers. When it comes to “people didn’t like xyz”, they have a few different methods. It used to be that people would write in via postage, but nowadays you can look at social media. Sometimes they use focus groups too to test something pre-release. They do that more for movies, but television also does it. These are sample sizes of audiences that are shown an episode or a film and write what they did or didn’t like.

 

[thrasherpix]

So how would they choose those who'd keep diaries on their media consumption and all that?

 

[thrasherpix]

And something else that's teasing me right now...why do so many movies (even shows) bomb when release, but become cult classics later on? (John Carpenter has a BUNCH of these.) I'd be curious how this is explained, especially if there was market research that went into it first.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

And something else that's teasing me right now...why do so many movies (even shows) bomb when release, but become cult classics later on? (John Carpenter has a BUNCH of these.) I'd be curious how this is explained, especially if there was market research that went into it first.

Tastes change. You watch it multiple times to pick up things you didn't notice the first time. You saw it originally with preconceived notions.

 

[Stake fodder]

So how would they choose those who'd keep diaries on their media consumption and all that?

Nielsen had/has a secret algorithm that they used to select households, and according to Wikipedia, at one time, it was as few as 1700 households. and no doubt, there were biases in their methodology.

Also, since these households were aware that their TV watching was being tracked, it may have affected the results. Like in an old  Roseanne episode, in which she declared after they were chosen, they could now only watch "educational crap."😛

 

[Plasma]

And something else that's teasing me right now...why do so many movies (even shows) bomb when release, but become cult classics later on? (John Carpenter has a BUNCH of these.) I'd be curious how this is explained, especially if there was market research that went into it first.

A lot is bad marketing or poor studio choices. You mention John Carpenter, so let’s take Halloween 3 (not a JC movie but he was involved). That movie is named Halloween 3, came after 2 previous movies that thoroughly established Michael, and has a tagline reminiscent of the first film (the night no one comes home vs the night he came home). It was doomed from jump just based off of brand recognition alone.

Movie bombed horribly to the point that the Akkads have held a stranglehold on Michael Myers and refuse to innovate that franchise 40 years later.

Other times it’s previous projects performing poorly. The recent Indiana Jones is a great example. 2008’s Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was absolutely lambasted by online critics and forum-goers, to the point that it is still the butt of jokes. This was the peak of “nitpick critique” like CinemaSins, so people just nitpicked and hated it because of small factors that didn’t matter. Flash forward to 2023 and the new Indy movie flops largely in part due to the intense negative “fan” reception to Crystal Skull.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

the new Indy movie flops largely in part due to the intense negative “fan” reception to Crystal Skull.

Hogwash. You can't blame the new Indy movie failing because of Crystal Skull.

 

[Hunga Munga]

Back in the day TV companies were obsessed with audience numbers and make up . For most of commercial television back then, the audience was the actual product they had to sell . The television programs were just bait to attract the product ... ideally an attractive demographic to sell to advertisers .

The methodology is pretty sound for 'broadcast' ad selling but our patterns of media consumption have changed beyond the scope of what anyone in the industry could have predicted . BTVS straddled both worlds of old and new media consumption ...but even 25 years ago they couldn't have imagined taking continued streaming revenue out of old shows .

 

[HowiMetdaSlayer]

Hogwash. You can't blame the new Indy movie failing because of Crystal Skull.

hate to agree with @Skanky Vamp but Dial of Destiny stunk all on it's own 👎

 

[November]

I just read this article and it doesn't give much info on how they count it, just that they have changed it in Australia.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv/ratings-spike-for-aussie-shows-amid-return-of-mafs-idol-and-survivor/news-story/ec02189fd389e221b4cc6c2726f0be0a

From there I read a bit more about OzTAM here

FAQs

<h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2> <p></p> <h3>ABOUT OzTAM</h3> <p></p> <p><b>What is OzTAM?</b><br /> OzTAM is the official source of television audience measurement (TAM), covering Australia’s five mainland metropolitan markets (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth) and nationally...

oztam.com.au

Next I am going to see how to join and constantly binge Survivor AU 🤣

 

[Miath]

I got a Nielsen survey in the mail last year. I threw it in the trash but according to the old people I know that's pretty much how the corpos know, another corpo vets the populace. Dunno about outside the US.