Comments on: Nielsen Ratings for Sunday, Feb 3: Super or Not so Super? http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555 Nielsen TV Show Ratings, Data and More Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:43:59 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4334 Robert Seidman Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:21:22 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4334 I agree with your thinking about elasticity, though it still troubles me that FOX typically (though not this past Sunday) underperforms the other network's SB coverage. It makes me wonder if there's something in the system where if Pats vs. Giants were on CBS, it wouldn't have cracked 100m. last year's Bears/Colts was not the previous record for viwers, that was the 1996 Steelers/Cowboys matchup, but Bears/Colts was close! I agree with your thinking about elasticity, though it still troubles me that FOX typically (though not this past Sunday) underperforms the other network’s SB coverage. It makes me wonder if there’s something in the system where if Pats vs. Giants were on CBS, it wouldn’t have cracked 100m.

last year’s Bears/Colts was not the previous record for viwers, that was the 1996 Steelers/Cowboys matchup, but Bears/Colts was close!

]]> By: Alex http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4333 Alex Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:11:14 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4333 I hear you Robert, a 5% bump doesn't seem all that huge, but in this case it really was. Unlike most or nearly all television these days, the Superbowl is not all that elastic. There hasn't been a lot of stretch room in the ratings over the past 10-15 years. This is mostly good for the NFL, because it ensures that the game doesn't rely on the attractiveness of teams/markets for their showcase event. But the downside actually arises when great matchups to come to fruition. The game has already hit it's max audience levels, there's nobody else left that will ever watch. An 81(!) share in Boston still meant 19% of people didn't watch who had their TVs on. And again, look at the articles from last year's Superbowl. Big market Bears, Peyton Manning, relatively close game. It added up to the MOST WATCHED SUPERBOWL EVER. And somehow, this year's game was able to find another 4 MILLION people for XLII -- 4 million people who did not watch the most-watched game ever until Sunday. I hear you Robert, a 5% bump doesn’t seem all that huge, but in this case it really was. Unlike most or nearly all television these days, the Superbowl is not all that elastic. There hasn’t been a lot of stretch room in the ratings over the past 10-15 years. This is mostly good for the NFL, because it ensures that the game doesn’t rely on the attractiveness of teams/markets for their showcase event. But the downside actually arises when great matchups to come to fruition. The game has already hit it’s max audience levels, there’s nobody else left that will ever watch. An 81(!) share in Boston still meant 19% of people didn’t watch who had their TVs on. And again, look at the articles from last year’s Superbowl. Big market Bears, Peyton Manning, relatively close game. It added up to the MOST WATCHED SUPERBOWL EVER. And somehow, this year’s game was able to find another 4 MILLION people for XLII — 4 million people who did not watch the most-watched game ever until Sunday.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19945 Robert Seidman Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:21:22 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19945 I agree with your thinking about elasticity, though it still troubles me that FOX typically (though not this past Sunday) underperforms the other network's SB coverage. It makes me wonder if there's something in the system where if Pats vs. Giants were on CBS, it wouldn't have cracked 100m.<br><br>last year's Bears/Colts was not the previous record for viwers, that was the 1996 Steelers/Cowboys matchup, but Bears/Colts was close! I agree with your thinking about elasticity, though it still troubles me that FOX typically (though not this past Sunday) underperforms the other network's SB coverage. It makes me wonder if there's something in the system where if Pats vs. Giants were on CBS, it wouldn't have cracked 100m.

last year's Bears/Colts was not the previous record for viwers, that was the 1996 Steelers/Cowboys matchup, but Bears/Colts was close!

]]> By: Alex http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19944 Alex Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:11:14 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19944 I hear you Robert, a 5% bump doesn't seem all that huge, but in this case it really was. Unlike most or nearly all television these days, the Superbowl is not all that elastic. There hasn't been a lot of stretch room in the ratings over the past 10-15 years. This is mostly good for the NFL, because it ensures that the game doesn't rely on the attractiveness of teams/markets for their showcase event. But the downside actually arises when great matchups to come to fruition. The game has already hit it's max audience levels, there's nobody else left that will ever watch. An 81(!) share in Boston still meant 19% of people didn't watch who had their TVs on. And again, look at the articles from last year's Superbowl. Big market Bears, Peyton Manning, relatively close game. It added up to the MOST WATCHED SUPERBOWL EVER. And somehow, this year's game was able to find another 4 MILLION people for XLII -- 4 million people who did not watch the most-watched game ever until Sunday. I hear you Robert, a 5% bump doesn't seem all that huge, but in this case it really was. Unlike most or nearly all television these days, the Superbowl is not all that elastic. There hasn't been a lot of stretch room in the ratings over the past 10-15 years. This is mostly good for the NFL, because it ensures that the game doesn't rely on the attractiveness of teams/markets for their showcase event. But the downside actually arises when great matchups to come to fruition. The game has already hit it's max audience levels, there's nobody else left that will ever watch. An 81(!) share in Boston still meant 19% of people didn't watch who had their TVs on. And again, look at the articles from last year's Superbowl. Big market Bears, Peyton Manning, relatively close game. It added up to the MOST WATCHED SUPERBOWL EVER. And somehow, this year's game was able to find another 4 MILLION people for XLII — 4 million people who did not watch the most-watched game ever until Sunday.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4330 Robert Seidman Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:10:55 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4330 Alex, as with other "media" my goal was simply to get whatever information that was available out there. I did update as new info became available, but I agree with the comments in your last paragraph. Still, if a team on a historic quest to do something never done only nets a 5%-6% increase in viewership from the previous year... I didn't find the numbers all that impressive vs. last year given the stakes. Still don't. Alex, as with other “media” my goal was simply to get whatever information that was available out there.

I did update as new info became available, but I agree with the comments in your last paragraph. Still, if a team on a historic quest to do something never done only nets a 5%-6% increase in viewership from the previous year… I didn’t find the numbers all that impressive vs. last year given the stakes. Still don’t.

]]> By: Bill G but Not That One http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4329 Bill G but Not That One Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:05:08 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4329 To the real Bill G: You must be my alter-ego living my dream!! To the real Bill G: You must be my alter-ego living my dream!!

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19943 Robert Seidman Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:10:55 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19943 Alex, as with other "media" my goal was simply to get whatever information that was available out there.<br><br>I did update as new info became available, but I agree with the comments in your last paragraph. Still, if a team on a historic quest to do something never done only nets a 5%-6% increase in viewership from the previous year... I didn't find the numbers all that impressive vs. last year given the stakes. Still don't. Alex, as with other “media” my goal was simply to get whatever information that was available out there.

I did update as new info became available, but I agree with the comments in your last paragraph. Still, if a team on a historic quest to do something never done only nets a 5%-6% increase in viewership from the previous year… I didn't find the numbers all that impressive vs. last year given the stakes. Still don't.

]]> By: Bill G but Not That One http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19942 Bill G but Not That One Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:05:08 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19942 To the real Bill G: You must be my alter-ego living my dream!! To the real Bill G: You must be my alter-ego living my dream!!

]]> By: Alex http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4326 Alex Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:37:03 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4326 Robert -- I'm not sure why you emphasized the Fast National numbers yesterday morning, particularly when we know that they are always wildly innacurate for all live programming. The nets discount these numbers because they are based on time period data across the 55 metered-markets. While we can expect these ratings to be fairly accurate across the Eastern and even Central TZs, all bets are off as you head further West. In LA, for example, yesterday's SB XLII Fast Nats would have actually incorporated a large chunk of the post-game show. This is why yesterday's morning numbers were 10-15% below the final National figures that came in today. The final numbers were both impressive and historic. The 97.5 million viewers (average audience) represents an all-time high for the Super Bowl and a 5% gain from last year (Colts/Bears). And we shouldn't forget that last season's game was impressive in its own right. With 93.2 million viewers XLI was the most watched game since '96 (Cowboys/Steelers). There is much less volatility from a ratings perspective, where the last 8 Superbowls all fell between a 40.4 and 42.6 Household rtg. XLII came in at a 43.1, the highest rating since Rams-Titans in 2000 (43.3). Robert —

I’m not sure why you emphasized the Fast National numbers yesterday morning, particularly when we know that they are always wildly innacurate for all live programming.

The nets discount these numbers because they are based on time period data across the 55 metered-markets. While we can expect these ratings to be fairly accurate across the Eastern and even Central TZs, all bets are off as you head further West. In LA, for example, yesterday’s SB XLII Fast Nats would have actually incorporated a large chunk of the post-game show. This is why yesterday’s morning numbers were 10-15% below the final National figures that came in today.

The final numbers were both impressive and historic. The 97.5 million viewers (average audience) represents an all-time high for the Super Bowl and a 5% gain from last year (Colts/Bears). And we shouldn’t forget that last season’s game was impressive in its own right. With 93.2 million viewers XLI was the most watched game since ‘96 (Cowboys/Steelers). There is much less volatility from a ratings perspective, where the last 8 Superbowls all fell between a 40.4 and 42.6 Household rtg. XLII came in at a 43.1, the highest rating since Rams-Titans in 2000 (43.3).

]]> By: Alex http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19941 Alex Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:37:03 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19941 Robert -- <br><br>I'm not sure why you emphasized the Fast National numbers yesterday morning, particularly when we know that they are always wildly innacurate for all live programming.<br><br>The nets discount these numbers because they are based on time period data across the 55 metered-markets. While we can expect these ratings to be fairly accurate across the Eastern and even Central TZs, all bets are off as you head further West. In LA, for example, yesterday's SB XLII Fast Nats would have actually incorporated a large chunk of the post-game show. This is why yesterday's morning numbers were 10-15% below the final National figures that came in today. <br><br>The final numbers were both impressive and historic. The 97.5 million viewers (average audience) represents an all-time high for the Super Bowl and a 5% gain from last year (Colts/Bears). And we shouldn't forget that last season's game was impressive in its own right. With 93.2 million viewers XLI was the most watched game since '96 (Cowboys/Steelers). There is much less volatility from a ratings perspective, where the last 8 Superbowls all fell between a 40.4 and 42.6 Household rtg. XLII came in at a 43.1, the highest rating since Rams-Titans in 2000 (43.3). Robert —

I'm not sure why you emphasized the Fast National numbers yesterday morning, particularly when we know that they are always wildly innacurate for all live programming.

The nets discount these numbers because they are based on time period data across the 55 metered-markets. While we can expect these ratings to be fairly accurate across the Eastern and even Central TZs, all bets are off as you head further West. In LA, for example, yesterday's SB XLII Fast Nats would have actually incorporated a large chunk of the post-game show. This is why yesterday's morning numbers were 10-15% below the final National figures that came in today.

The final numbers were both impressive and historic. The 97.5 million viewers (average audience) represents an all-time high for the Super Bowl and a 5% gain from last year (Colts/Bears). And we shouldn't forget that last season's game was impressive in its own right. With 93.2 million viewers XLI was the most watched game since '96 (Cowboys/Steelers). There is much less volatility from a ratings perspective, where the last 8 Superbowls all fell between a 40.4 and 42.6 Household rtg. XLII came in at a 43.1, the highest rating since Rams-Titans in 2000 (43.3).

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4318 Bill Gorman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:44:59 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4318 Wait a second, exactly how many Bill G's are there around here? Wait a second, exactly how many Bill G’s are there around here?

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19940 Bill Gorman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:44:59 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19940 Wait a second, exactly how many Bill G's are there around here? Wait a second, exactly how many Bill G's are there around here?

]]> By: Bill G http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4317 Bill G Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:36:11 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4317 I agree with the comments on the flatness of the announcing. What was missing for me was an explanation of why the Giants were getting to Brady, given in an entertaining and informative way. This is exactly what Cris Collinsworth brings; I really miss him as part of this team. In the Washington DC market, House started about 10:40 pm. I agree with the comments on the flatness of the announcing. What was missing for me was an explanation of why the Giants were getting to Brady, given in an entertaining and informative way. This is exactly what Cris Collinsworth brings; I really miss him as part of this team.

In the Washington DC market, House started about 10:40 pm.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4315 Robert Seidman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:09:47 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4315 mine included. #$@%! mine included. #$@%!

]]> By: Bill G http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19939 Bill G Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:36:11 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19939 I agree with the comments on the flatness of the announcing. What was missing for me was an explanation of why the Giants were getting to Brady, given in an entertaining and informative way. This is exactly what Cris Collinsworth brings; I really miss him as part of this team.<br><br>In the Washington DC market, House started about 10:40 pm. I agree with the comments on the flatness of the announcing. What was missing for me was an explanation of why the Giants were getting to Brady, given in an entertaining and informative way. This is exactly what Cris Collinsworth brings; I really miss him as part of this team.

In the Washington DC market, House started about 10:40 pm.

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4312 Bill Gorman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:12:31 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4312 And the DVRs of America recorded a lot of partial House episodes last night, because of the over-run. And the DVRs of America recorded a lot of partial House episodes last night, because of the over-run.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19938 Robert Seidman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:09:47 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19938 mine included. #$@%! mine included. #$@%!

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4311 Robert Seidman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:48:49 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4311 You're not wrong Peter, and probably was the case in Boston and most everywhere else on the east coast as well. I'm not really clear on how Nielsen does the overnight averages in terms of reconciling the different time zones, but the way the info was reported was for 10:30p-11p, and as that's all we had access to, I included it. You’re not wrong Peter, and probably was the case in Boston and most everywhere else on the east coast as well. I’m not really clear on how Nielsen does the overnight averages in terms of reconciling the different time zones, but the way the info was reported was for 10:30p-11p, and as that’s all we had access to, I included it.

]]> By: Peter http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4310 Peter Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:16:04 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4310 Hey, I could be wrong, but I live in NY, and I'm pretty sure House didn't start until 11:00 pm. It was slated for 10:15 but FOX just continuously showed post-game interviews and commentary until 11. Personally I think it was a lot more entertaining to watch everyone in the streets of NY going absolutely nuts because we won the SUPER BOWL on the other channels. Hey, I could be wrong, but I live in NY, and I’m pretty sure House didn’t start until 11:00 pm. It was slated for 10:15 but FOX just continuously showed post-game interviews and commentary until 11. Personally I think it was a lot more entertaining to watch everyone in the streets of NY going absolutely nuts because we won the SUPER BOWL on the other channels.

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19937 Bill Gorman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:12:31 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19937 And the DVRs of America recorded a lot of partial House episodes last night, because of the over-run. And the DVRs of America recorded a lot of partial House episodes last night, because of the over-run.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19936 Robert Seidman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:48:49 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19936 You're not wrong Peter, and probably was the case in Boston and most everywhere else on the east coast as well. I'm not really clear on how Nielsen does the overnight averages in terms of reconciling the different time zones, but the way the info was reported was for 10:30p-11p, and as that's all we had access to, I included it. You're not wrong Peter, and probably was the case in Boston and most everywhere else on the east coast as well. I'm not really clear on how Nielsen does the overnight averages in terms of reconciling the different time zones, but the way the info was reported was for 10:30p-11p, and as that's all we had access to, I included it.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4307 Robert Seidman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:21:49 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4307 indeed, historic only in being the only 18-0 team entering the superbowl. indeed, historic only in being the only 18-0 team entering the superbowl.

]]> By: Sandy http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4306 Sandy Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:20:16 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-4306 Two other teams have gone 18-1, the '84 49ers and '85 Bears. And they won the Super Bowl. Two other teams have gone 18-1, the ‘84 49ers and ‘85 Bears. And they won the Super Bowl.

]]> By: Peter http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19935 Peter Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:16:04 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19935 Hey, I could be wrong, but I live in NY, and I'm pretty sure House didn't start until 11:00 pm. It was slated for 10:15 but FOX just continuously showed post-game interviews and commentary until 11. Personally I think it was a lot more entertaining to watch everyone in the streets of NY going absolutely nuts because we won the SUPER BOWL on the other channels. Hey, I could be wrong, but I live in NY, and I'm pretty sure House didn't start until 11:00 pm. It was slated for 10:15 but FOX just continuously showed post-game interviews and commentary until 11. Personally I think it was a lot more entertaining to watch everyone in the streets of NY going absolutely nuts because we won the SUPER BOWL on the other channels.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19934 Robert Seidman Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:21:49 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/04/nielsen-ratings-for-sunday-february-3-super-or-not-that-super/2555#comment-19934 indeed, historic only in being the only 18-0 team entering the superbowl. indeed, historic only in being the only 18-0 team entering the superbowl.

]]>