The Ratings Box Theory Thread

[AFLcrap1]

Due to the powers that be getting sick of off topic talk ,& the refusal of Dumbo to discuss his theory I thought I would open a thread to discuss Rating boxes .
It will stop clogging up other threads .


Now dumbo you made this claim









the TV companies when choosing to give out those rating boxes complete surveys then choose to distribute the rating boxes to which ever basement dwelling looser that watches the most TV during the week, so then the TV companies can then go to the advertisers & claim we have so many hundred thousand people watch out network,


My reply that you can't seem to answer



According to you .
Tv stations hand out ratings boxers to select people .
Knowing that they will watch certain programs .
Then try to leverage advertising dollars off companies with these fake numbers .

Here's where your theory is as about as relevant as all your other bizarre claims .

So once a tv channel has put out fake ratings to show how popular a program or sport is ,they then have to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the rights to that sport .
Why would they artificially inflate the popularity of a sport when it will drive the price up ?
According to you they are paying big overs for something they know doesn't rate well ,but they lied about that so they could outlay far more than it's worth .


Over to you ,to explain what tv companies would do that.

[AFLcrap1]

Lol .
Looks like the poster who made the claim about the ratings boxes has problems explaining his theory .
Lol x1000.

[Swans4ever]

Well the whole rating boxes are flawed anyway - only OzTAM knows where the rating boxes are - but unless we know where the boxes are distributed we won't know if it's a true reflection of the viewing demographic - e.g. Equal boxes representing equal numbers - however if we know where the boxes are then they are then in danger of manipulation - either way it's a flawed concept - better if all were like Foxtel sets then we would know for sure without manipulation. Lastly OzTAM is an independent company not a government agency - therefore they are always open to influence depending on who buys their stock and who holds positions on their board. Therefore again flawed. I don't trust anything that uses such a low sample group whether it's 3000 or 4800 boxes it's too few in a city of almost 5 million (about 1041 people per set top box). But Wookie is right this is the system that is used for TV rights and sponsorship deals (although I think it is only one indicator).

[AFLcrap1]

Yes that may be right ,but has nothing to do with the theory .

[Swans4ever]

Yes that may be right ,but has nothing to do with the theory .

Just making my own observation not necessarily consumed by it.

[AFLcrap1]

Well I'm trying to keep the ramblings about ratings boxes in one thread .
Looks like there won't be much debate .

[King-Eliagh]

I don't trust anything that uses such a low sample group whether it's 3000 or 4800 boxes it's too few in a city of almost 5 million (about 1041 people per set top box).

Ahh well you clearly don't understand stats too well. In a pop of five million a sample size of 1000 would provide very valid and reliable results. So 3-4 thousand is fine.

[Swans4ever]

I don't trust anything that uses such a low sample group whether it's 3000 or 4800 boxes it's too few in a city of almost 5 million (about 1041 people per set top box).

Ahh well you clearly don't understand stats too well. In a pop of five million a sample size of 1000 would provide very valid and reliable results. So 3-4 thousand is fine.

I most prob don't but that doesn't mean that a higher representative percentage isn't the best ideal. That lowers the margin for error!

[leagueiscrap]

Well the whole rating boxes are flawed anyway - only OzTAM knows where the rating boxes are - but unless we know where the boxes are distributed we won't know if it's a true reflection of the viewing demographic - e.g. Equal boxes representing equal numbers - however if we know where the boxes are then they are then in danger of manipulation - either way it's a flawed concept - better if all were like Foxtel sets then we would know for sure without manipulation. Lastly OzTAM is an independent company not a government agency - therefore they are always open to influence depending on who buys their stock and who holds positions on their board. Therefore again flawed. I don't trust anything that uses such a low sample group whether it's 3000 or 4800 boxes it's too few in a city of almost 5 million (about 1041 people per set top box). But Wookie is right this is the system that is used for TV rights and sponsorship deals (although I think it is only one indicator).

The figure is around 500 rating boxes in Sydney
Around 3000 for the metro cities across Australia
The other 1800 are placed around regional areas mainly in nsw and qld.



There has been a number of times where the swans attendance to a game played at the school will be higher than the actual number of people registered on the TV rating system.

When that happens the system is clearly to be proven as BS

[leagueiscrap]

I don't trust anything that uses such a low sample group whether it's 3000 or 4800 boxes it's too few in a city of almost 5 million (about 1041 people per set top box).

Ahh well you clearly don't understand stats too well. In a pop of five million a sample size of 1000 would provide very valid and reliable results. So 3-4 thousand is fine.

rubbish.
The stats in Sydney are about 500 boxes to 5 million people.
If you that's a reliable source your dreaming

That's why when you compare the two codes, in popularity, revenue, sponsorship etc, the nrl are decades behind

[AFLcrap1]

Dumbo why are you avoiding answering my question about your bizarre theory .

[AFLcrap1]

Dumbo .
You're MIA .
I kindly started this thread for you to explain the ratings box theory .
But you've dogged it .
Why is that .?
Did I make a fool of you & your bizarre theories again .
So once again ,can you answer this question ?






Now dumbo you made this claim









the TV companies when choosing to give out those rating boxes complete surveys then choose to distribute the rating boxes to which ever basement dwelling looser that watches the most TV during the week, so then the TV companies can then go to the advertisers & claim we have so many hundred thousand people watch out network,


My reply that you can't seem to answer



According to you .
Tv stations hand out ratings boxers to select people .
Knowing that they will watch certain programs .
Then try to leverage advertising dollars off companies with these fake numbers .


So once a tv channel has put out fake ratings to show how popular a program or sport is ,they then have to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the rights to that sport .
Why would they artificially inflate the popularity of a sport when it will drive the price up ?
According to you they are paying big overs for something they know doesn't rate well ,but they lied about that so they could outlay far more than it's worth

[AFLcrap1]

Dumbo why are you avoiding this thread .
Come on
You have a ratings box theory .

I showed your theory was laughable .
Now you won't reply

Why is that?

[pussycat]

If you read through the OZ TAM info that it provides, it says it once done a test using extra boxes and the results were very similar.

[Swans4ever]

If you read through the OZ TAM info that it provides, it says it once done a test using extra boxes and the results were very similar.

So what if you have 4000 boxes that's 1 person to every 5750 people - 5000 boxes is 1 in 4600 people that's a big margin for error - and where did they place those extra boxes were they all in the one suburb or evenly spread??? What is the age demographic - that's an awful lot of information missing for it to be reliable and before you start telling me about OZTAM being reliable how would we know - do they get independently audited - could be many reasons to manipulate ratings!!! But why do you ignore crowds, memberships, sponsorship levels etc etc why is TV ratings the only stat you ever talk about????? Seems we all know the reason why but have you convinced yourself that they don't matter??