Seriously, answer me this about rating/demo

[Fakeem]

Not sure where I should post this, but here it goes. Why are ratings/demo based on 18-49? Unless you're like Roy Moore, a 49 year old will have almost nothing in common with an 18 year old. The designations need to be reevaluated. A show geared to an 18 y/o, like a CW show, will be different from a drama on CBS, yet the audiences for both are treated the same. Seems that the demos need to be approximately 10 years apart, to be halfway realistic. Also, if true, why do only about 5000 people represent the likes of a nation of about 300 Million. I don't believe you can accurately extrapolate from a nation as diverse as this one.

 

[davideduardo]

Not sure where I should post this, but here it goes. Why are ratings/demo based on 18-49? Unless you're like Roy Moore, a 49 year old will have almost nothing in common with an 18 year old. The designations need to be reevaluated. A show geared to an 18 y/o, like a CW show, will be different from a drama on CBS, yet the audiences for both are treated the same. Seems that the demos need to be approximately 10 years apart, to be halfway realistic. Also, if true, why do only about 5000 people represent the likes of a nation of about 300 Million. I don't believe you can accurately extrapolate from a nation as diverse as this one.

18-49 is the TV "catch all" just as 25-54 is in radio. It's a basket, and most buys are for some part of that demo; advertisers, networks and stations get far more granular data than what appears online.

But 18-49 is the metric TV networks use to see if a show is reaching the sales demos. If a show is not good in 18-49, it can't be doing well in a more specific target.

Properly selected for proportionality, a panel can certainly be representative of a much larger universe.

Nielsen says, "National Audiences are measured using people meters (NPM = National People Meter sample). A sample of 20,000 homes across USA is recruited and all TV sets in these homes are electronically monitored. Individuals’ viewing is measured as well: people in the household register their viewing using a specially designed handset."

20 thousand households would be a total panel of nearly 60,000 persons given average family size in the US. That is a very large sample.

 

[CTListener]

Not sure where I should post this, but here it goes. Why are ratings/demo based on 18-49? Unless you're like Roy Moore, a 49 year old will have almost nothing in common with an 18 year old. The designations need to be reevaluated. A show geared to an 18 y/o, like a CW show, will be different from a drama on CBS, yet the audiences for both are treated the same. Seems that the demos need to be approximately 10 years apart, to be halfway realistic. Also, if true, why do only about 5000 people represent the likes of a nation of about 300 Million. I don't believe you can accurately extrapolate from a nation as diverse as this one.

If you have a truly random, proportional sampling, polling results are accurate to a high degree -- especially so when the polling is done by electronic device, which eliminates the possibility of respondents lying, either due to faulty memory or intentionally attempting to discredit the pollster (i.e., saying you've just voted for one candidate when you really voted for the other). And 18-49 represents the peak years during which American consumers are (a) buying on impulse rather than by necessity and have the money to do so, (b) easily drawn in by a sales pitch, and (c) willing to try something new.

OOPS: Sorry for jumping in, David. The common misconception about and mistrust of polling -- which is a science -- is something that always ticks me off.

 

[davideduardo]

OOPS: Sorry for jumping in, David. The common misconception about and mistrust of polling -- which is a science -- is something that always ticks me off.

You make good points.

Statistical sampling is the only science where "error" is not a dirty word. The whole idea of a poll is to do something reliable for much less than the cost of a census, which would be impossible and way too expensive.

Polls have margins of error in accordance with the size of the sample vs. the entire universe as well as other variables. For tv ratings, which are used to determine pricing for adverting, being off by a +/- a couple of percent is insignificant. Polls are best served in demonstrating past behaviour, and fail when trying to predict the future.

Thus, polls about what you watch are very accurate. Polls about who you will vote for taken before an election are predictive, and behaviour can change at the last minute. Yet most Americans judge polling based on election polls, which is where they are at their weakest because they do not measure past actions and attempt to be predictive.

 

[CTListener]

Polls about who you will vote for taken before an election are predictive, and behaviour can change at the last minute. Yet most Americans judge polling based on election polls, which is where they are at their weakest because they do not measure past actions and attempt to be predictive.

And in this past presidential election, both pre-election and exit polls may well have been tainted by Trump voters who said they would be voting or had just voted for Clinton -- either to embarrass the mainstream media by contributing to an incorrect result or out of reluctance to disclose their real preference to someone from the mainstream media. Another level of gaming the system for these fact-challenged times.

 

[landtuna]

The common misconception about and mistrust of polling -- which is a science -- is something that always ticks me off.

Yeah, because if polling were an exact science Hillary would be president.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

National samples were pretty spot on about the popular vote margin. A few misses in a few states and the quirks of our system led to the current scenario.

 

[Fakeem]

18-49 is the TV "catch all" just as 25-54 is in radio. It's a basket, and most buys are for some part of that demo; advertisers, networks and stations get far more granular data than what appears online.

But 18-49 is the metric TV networks use to see if a show is reaching the sales demos. If a show is not good in 18-49, it can't be doing well in a more specific target.

Properly selected for proportionality, a panel can certainly be representative of a much larger universe.

Nielsen says, "National Audiences are measured using people meters (NPM = National People Meter sample). A sample of 20,000 homes across USA is recruited and all TV sets in these homes are electronically monitored. Individuals’ viewing is measured as well: people in the household register their viewing using a specially designed handset."

20 thousand households would be a total panel of nearly 60,000 persons given average family size in the US. That is a very large sample.

Thanks. They must have upgraded over the years, as I belief at one point, that the number was about 5000 for national. I can accept 20,000 for the national study I forgot how many they used for local markets, though the number 500 rings a bell.

 

[Fakeem]

If you have a truly random, proportional sampling, polling results are accurate to a high degree -- especially so when the polling is done by electronic device, which eliminates the possibility of respondents lying, either due to faulty memory or intentionally attempting to discredit the pollster (i.e., saying you've just voted for one candidate when you really voted for the other). And 18-49 represents the peak years during which American consumers are (a) buying on impulse rather than by necessity and have the money to do so, (b) easily drawn in by a sales pitch, and (c) willing to try something new.

OOPS: Sorry for jumping in, David. The common misconception about and mistrust of polling -- which is a science -- is something that always ticks me off.

Thanks for the explanation. I can readily accept the logic of b, less so of a & c.

 

[Fakeem]

Yeah, because if polling were an exact science Hillary would be president.

Since High School, I've disliked the concept behind the Electoral College being the final say for Presidency. After asking my teacher whether the electoral college had ever overruled the popular vote, he told the class about the only election, up to that time, where it had happened. Now, to think it's happened twice in the last 20 years, is sad. We are creating a generation that will have no belief in voting if this happens again during their lifetime.

 

[KeithE4]

Since High School, I've disliked the concept behind the Electoral College being the final say for Presidency. After asking my teacher whether the electoral college had ever overruled the popular vote, he told the class about the only election, up to that time, where it had happened. Now, to think it's happened twice in the last 20 years, is sad. We are creating a generation that will have no belief in voting if this happens again during their lifetime.

Your teacher was wrong. It's happened four times, plus one that was decided by Congress.

1824: John Quincy Adams (Incumbent) vs Andrew Jackson. Adams got the most popular votes (not taken in all states at the time) and also got the most electoral votes (99). Unfortunately for him, it took 131 electoral votes to be elected President at the time, so the election went to the House. Jackson won. BTW, both were Democratic-Republicans, the only active party at the time, but it split four ways after this election. Adams later co-founded the National Republicans, aka the Whig Party.

1876: Rutherford Hayes (R) lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden (D) but won the Electoral College by one vote. Hayes did not seek reelection in 1880.

1888: Grover Cleveland (D, incumbent) won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College to Benjamin Harrison (R). He would reverse the results in 1892, becoming the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms.

2000: Al Gore (D) won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to GW Bush (R), in the big Florida mess. Had Gore won his home state of Tennessee, Florida would have been moot.

2016: Hillary Clintion (D) won the popular vote over Donald Trump (R), thanks to huge majorities in California and New York. But because she was guaranteed to win those states anyway, it made no difference. Trump won where it counts, in the Electoral College.

 

[davideduardo]

Yeah, because if polling were an exact science Hillary would be president.

Polling is an exact science. With a given sample and universe, we can project precisely, at different confidence levels, the margin of error of the results.

The polls tried to predict future behaviour, so they were all subject to the whims of the undecided and those who vacillated in their choices.

And even then, the polls were within a percent or two of the actual results in the states that decided the outcome. Most were magnificently accurate statistically.

What has to be understood with a predictive poll is that the published results will influence the actual outcome. How many people said either "We actually have a chance. I am going to make the effort to vote" or "it's a shoe-in. I don't have to vote because we are going to win anyhow." Those changes in behaviour were cause by hearing the latest poll results.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Advertising and marketing people, armed with new technology and ways to analyze data,
made the discovery in the late 1960's that the vast majority of purchasing decisions in this country are made by females aged 18-49.

That is the genesis of the answer to your question. In general their data also indicates that by
the time consumers get to be my age they are stuck in their preferences and not as easy to persuade with advertising.

It's all about bang for the buck, where you feel it will do the most good.

 

[landtuna]

What has to be understood with a predictive poll is that the published results will influence the actual outcome. How many people said either "We actually have a chance. I am going to make the effort to vote" or "it's a shoe-in. I don't have to vote because we are going to win anyhow." Those changes in behaviour were cause by hearing the latest poll results.

Your explanation reminds me of two significant statements regarding polls: That's why games are played and wars are fought.