:_<>Onions wrote:No, because you ******* made that up! Like everything else you ******* say, mother fucker!
Onions wrote:No, because you ******* made that up! Like everything else you ******* say, mother fucker!
:_<> :_<>Truthsayer, make sure you don't miss this one with all onions nonsenseDogs wrote:Thanks for the invitation to include bendigo. So in there interests of keeping it fair, I added in the top 20. To keep all the information on the table I have also not added the following into the previous top 10 or now in the top 20 as they are either 50/50 or already counted in ozTAm figures:Dogs wrote:Seriously I am now laughing my a*** off, http://www.exploreaustralia.net.au/Sout ... terborough. Are you actually looking at the sizes of these towns before you post them. Now you are going to suggest from probably melbourne where your sport is strong in other states, it is about a creditable as the towns you are putting up. Again, Newcastle is about as big as the entire SA regional population, yet you ignore that. ozTAM includes a significant amount of regional SA population.Dogs wrote:
Like I said and Raider is right, it is the top 10, bendigo is 11. But to keep you happy I will get back to you with the top 20, so you can have your extra 90k
GoldCoast 50/50 and already counted
Geelong - Already in ozTAM (sounds like another bias to AFL in ozTAM)
Mandurah - Already in ozTAM (sounds like another bias to AFL in ozTAM)
Darwin 50/50
With the above said, thanks truthsayer, you are one of our best, are you sure you don't secretly support rugby league. This now makes a further mockery of the idea of only using ozTAM as it increases the NRL based towns by 1.9% and we lose 10% of our fan based viewers and incresase AFL by only 1.2% to 3%. The inclusiogn where:
Bendigo 91713
Mackay 85700
Burnie-Devonport 82567 (With this you would have 80% of Tassie incl)
Latrobe Valley[5] 81001
Rockhampton 77878
Bundaberg 69036
Bunbury 68248
Hervey Bay 60807
Wagga Wagga 58610
Coffs Harbour 53401
I think slayer has gone to have a bex & a good lie downDogs wrote:Dogs wrote:Thanks for the invitation to include bendigo. So in there interests of keeping it fair, I added in the top 20. To keep all the information on the table I have also not added the following into the previous top 10 or now in the top 20 as they are either 50/50 or already counted in ozTAm figures:Dogs wrote:Seriously I am now laughing my a*** off, http://www.exploreaustralia.net.au/Sout ... terborough. Are you actually looking at the sizes of these towns before you post them. Now you are going to suggest from probably melbourne where your sport is strong in other states, it is about a creditable as the towns you are putting up. Again, Newcastle is about as big as the entire SA regional population, yet you ignore that. ozTAM includes a significant amount of regional SA population.
Like I said and Raider is right, it is the top 10, bendigo is 11. But to keep you happy I will get back to you with the top 20, so you can have your extra 90k
GoldCoast 50/50 and already counted
Geelong - Already in ozTAM (sounds like another bias to AFL in ozTAM)
Mandurah - Already in ozTAM (sounds like another bias to AFL in ozTAM)
Darwin 50/50
With the above said, thanks truthsayer, you are one of our best, are you sure you don't secretly support rugby league. This now makes a further mockery of the idea of only using ozTAM as it increases the NRL based towns by 1.9% and we lose 10% of our fan based viewers and incresase AFL by only 1.2% to 3%. The inclusiogn where:
Bendigo 91713
Mackay 85700
Burnie-Devonport 82567 (With this you would have 80% of Tassie incl)
Latrobe Valley[5] 81001
Rockhampton 77878
Bundaberg 69036
Bunbury 68248
Hervey Bay 60807
Wagga Wagga 58610
Coffs Harbour 53401
Truthsayer, make sure you don't miss this one with all onions nonsense
It would be more to do with NRL states having 70% more regionals.Truthsayer wrote:Let me make this perfectly clear, Mr Dog. Until such time as the overlaps are eliminated and all of regional Australia is counted, whether it the missing parts of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, or regional South Australia and the whole of the Northern Territory, the regional ratings are not accurate. Maybe the NRL might garner more when they are included. Equally maybe the AFL might garner more. We don't know for sure. That was my root point. Surely you would support a single provider and all areas covered without exception? I think's it foolish to have a system that only covers two states completely, and neither of them are mainland east coast states.
This is why - for now - arguing for regional figures is inherently false. Enough people are being missed to make it a major concern.
and how strong is the Swans base? I don't think anyone in this thread would dispute that we need a single provider, however as you are well aware, we don't have one. There will not in the short term without new technology have every house covered, with every person that is in it counted accurately. So I think you are being a little unrealistic.Truthsayer wrote:Let me make this perfectly clear, Mr Dog. Until such time as the overlaps are eliminated and all of regional Australia is counted, whether it the missing parts of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, or regional South Australia and the whole of the Northern Territory, the regional ratings are not accurate. Maybe the NRL might garner more when they are included. Equally maybe the AFL might garner more. We don't know for sure. That was my root point. Surely you would support a single provider and all areas covered without exception? I think's it foolish to have a system that only covers two states completely, and neither of them are mainland east coast states.
This is why - for now - arguing for regional figures is inherently false. Enough people are being missed to make it a major concern.
ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.
While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.
National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237
Beaussie wrote:Again for the dummies, the FTA broadcasters don't give a **** about unreliable regional counts.
ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.
While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.
National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237
Truthsayer wrote:It is actually not unrealistic for two televisions in a house to be watching two different channels but with the same content. It is not unknown, for instance, for Foxtel subscribers to watch the Free to Air Channels through their feed. It is available. The same is true of the ABC on Austar. This would become an interesting development once analog television is turned off in the capital cities, not that Foxtel subscribers logically would be able to afford the expense of the upgrade.
I do not buy the assumption that the NRL stands to lose more if the regional ratings are ignored. The AFL has a nationwide appeal as it's presence in all five mainland states is a testament to. I understand looking back through posts investigating the views of TLPG (as I have been accused of being that user I was curious) that the assertion has been made that there is an extensive grass roots presence in many areas of New South Wales that would be considered NRL heartland. Specifics however were not mentioned from what I read, just a number. 246 I think it was. this would translate to enough ratings to give the AFL enough of a base to get ahead of the NRL in regional Australia in total once the missing areas are added.
It is also the case that RegionalTam only publishes a top 40. It does not publish all programs. I have proven before through the statistics on this site (yes, it's OzTam only but the point is still valid) that even if the top rating individual game may be an NRL game, the total viewing for all games on a weekend is won by the AFL because the lowest rating game is also an NRL game.
It is not fair to assume anything. Practical fact speaks against you, in that too much of Australia is not counted at all. I actually know someone who has a box in an overlap area, and they are always checked twice. Once by OzTam and once by RegionalTam. They have three televisions in the house; the Lounge and the two bedrooms occupied by teenage children.
What a load of 
again with no fact. Truthsayer wrote:It is actually not unrealistic for two televisions in a house to be watching two different channels but with the same content. It is not unknown, for instance, for Foxtel subscribers to watch the Free to Air Channels through their feed. It is available. The same is true of the ABC on Austar. This would become an interesting development once analog television is turned off in the capital cities, not that Foxtel subscribers logically would be able to afford the expense of the upgrade.
I do not buy the assumption that the NRL stands to lose more if the regional ratings are ignored. The AFL has a nationwide appeal as it's presence in all five mainland states is a testament to. I understand looking back through posts investigating the views of TLPG (as I have been accused of being that user I was curious) that the assertion has been made that there is an extensive grass roots presence in many areas of New South Wales that would be considered NRL heartland. Specifics however were not mentioned from what I read, just a number. 246 I think it was. this would translate to enough ratings to give the AFL enough of a base to get ahead of the NRL in regional Australia in total once the missing areas are added.
It is also the case that RegionalTam only publishes a top 40. It does not publish all programs. I have proven before through the statistics on this site (yes, it's OzTam only but the point is still valid) that even if the top rating individual game may be an NRL game, the total viewing for all games on a weekend is won by the AFL because the lowest rating game is also an NRL game.
It is not fair to assume anything. Practical fact speaks against you, in that too much of Australia is not counted at all. I actually know someone who has a box in an overlap area, and they are always checked twice. Once by OzTam and once by RegionalTam. They have three televisions in the house; the Lounge and the two bedrooms occupied by teenage children.
