Talking Footy

No it doesn't. Works beautifully just doesnt give the AFL faithful the answers they want/need.

enarelle wrote:

No it doesn't. Works beautifully just doesnt give the AFL faithful the answers they want/need.

It's designed to gauge interest not count equally in every area. If it was it would count all areas, which it doesn't, and not double count areas with other systems, which it does.

That's exactly why the article Beaussie presented alled the cumulative figures questionable.

This is a myth. The annual report by the independent marketing company , Repucom,which the AFL uses includes all regions repeat all regions. They are covered by OZ TAM which is the technology and available almost instantly versus the older style diaries which take longer to collate and report. They are all brought together in the end of year analysis

Most of the areas that AFL fans claim to be excluded even if excluded could not change the fact that the NRL finishes in front eg they dont have cable TV


If you want to do a an easy cross check to prove the numbers all you have to do is use the split between regional and metro viewers for the AFL/NRL eg say 90% of the population of WA/SA/Vic are included in the metro ratings. If that produces 100m viewers then divide by 9 = 11m. You just need to add another 11m to get the ratings for the non metro viewers. Do the same for the NRL. The AFL has a lead for metro but the significantly higher population of regional NSW/QLD reverses that in the total numbers

No AFL fan has yet explained how over the last 5 years using the same reporting methods for the same number of games the NRL has gone from 10m behind the AFL to 15m in front.

enarelle wrote:

This is a myth. The annual report by the independent marketing company , Repucom,which the AFL uses includes all regions repeat all regions. They are covered by OZ TAM which is the technology and available almost instantly versus the older style diaries which take longer to collate and report. They are all brought together in the end of year analysis

Most of the areas that AFL fans claim to be excluded even if excluded could not change the fact that the NRL finishes in front eg they dont have cable TV


If you want to do a an easy cross check to prove the numbers all you have to do is use the split between regional and metro viewers for the AFL/NRL eg say 90% of the population of WA/SA/Vic are included in the metro ratings. If that produces 100m viewers then divide by 9 = 11m. You just need to add another 11m to get the ratings for the non metro viewers. Do the same for the NRL. The AFL has a lead for metro but the significantly higher population of regional NSW/QLD reverses that in the total numbers

No AFL fan has yet explained how over the last 5 years using the same reporting methods for the same number of games the NRL has gone from 10m behind the AFL to 15m in front.

Please provide a link showing that oztam includes all regions of Australia. The reports I have seen claim AFL finals with 5city ratings of over 1 million have less than 100k regional ratings. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

Xman wrote:

enarelle wrote:

This is a myth. The annual report by the independent marketing company , Repucom,which the AFL uses includes all regions repeat all regions. They are covered by OZ TAM which is the technology and available almost instantly versus the older style diaries which take longer to collate and report. They are all brought together in the end of year analysis

Most of the areas that AFL fans claim to be excluded even if excluded could not change the fact that the NRL finishes in front eg they dont have cable TV


If you want to do a an easy cross check to prove the numbers all you have to do is use the split between regional and metro viewers for the AFL/NRL eg say 90% of the population of WA/SA/Vic are included in the metro ratings. If that produces 100m viewers then divide by 9 = 11m. You just need to add another 11m to get the ratings for the non metro viewers. Do the same for the NRL. The AFL has a lead for metro but the significantly higher population of regional NSW/QLD reverses that in the total numbers

No AFL fan has yet explained how over the last 5 years using the same reporting methods for the same number of games the NRL has gone from 10m behind the AFL to 15m in front.

Please provide a link showing that oztam includes all regions of Australia. The reports I have seen claim AFL finals with 5city ratings of over 1 million have less than 100k regional ratings. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

this again
one final is your proof ?
it was a shit final ... , that provided dissapointing ratings ... in a shit season that saw ratings plummet for your rubbish comp from one end of australia .. to the other
it was an underwhelming result for sure ... but your code is geting plenty of those these days
you base your .. mythical beliefs .. on percentages
I've told you that method fraught with flaws & inconsistencies

the coverage of the flogball capitals is ...an area that has ova 8 Million people in it ... regional populations are included in this ... ova a Million
5 capitals attracted 950K
lets say 150K of those from Sydney & Brisbane ... the Swans were playing afterall
leaving 800K in the ***** capitals ... or about 9%
we have less then 2 Million people in the regional to count from here .... tassie is not included ... & weren't part of the 100K regional ratings for this final
so we take their 500K population out of the less then 2 Million to consider may have watched this final

guess what
about 9% watched the game .... now that would assume no one from regional NSW or QLD watched it at all
but like I said .. it was a dissapointing result for the AFL

hugely inaccurate .... no
just shit ratings that are quite believable

So no link? Got it.

I suggest to you, enarelle, that you stop making excuses for an inherently unreliable system that no one should be relying on. Not NRL, not AFL, not anyone. There are too many holes in it and too many blind spots. So it should never be used by anyone for any purpose. Metropolitan ratings are the only reliable ratings and in this area it is clear that the AFL is defeating the NRL. In 2011 the cumulative margin was 13 million.

Xman wrote:

So no link? Got it.

link to what ?
an alternate universe where the AFL is more popular then NRL

no ... that doesn't exist either ...

Burps don't count as a reply.

Topper wrote:

I suggest to you, enarelle, that you stop making excuses for an inherently unreliable system that no one should be relying on. Not NRL, not AFL, not anyone. There are too many holes in it and too many blind spots. So it should never be used by anyone for any purpose. Metropolitan ratings are the only reliable ratings and in this area it is clear that the AFL is defeating the NRL. In 2011 the cumulative margin was 13 million.

I suggest to you tipsy
you stop relying on theories about said ratings by flogball windbags .. that are less reliable then those relating to the existence of the lochness monster & the tooth fairy

there are no holes
only those in these fanciful theories .... if the Ratings weren't reliable they wouldn't be used at all
I have not found one singletball wombat who can answer why they are ... if they are sooooo inherently flawed
the truth is ... for the areas they do count .. they are as accurate as the metro figures , thats why they are used.

it gives you a painful result yes
but one ... you have to learn to live with

And the burp machine proves it's ignorance by burping again.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So no link? Got it.

link to what ?
an alternate universe where the AFL is more popular then NRL

no ... that doesn't exist either ...

Keep up knucklehead!

There was a claim made that there are cumulative figures for TV ratings which cover every single part of Australia. I asked for a link to prove these exist. What, are we just going to take your word for it?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So no link? Got it.

link to what ?
an alternate universe where the AFL is more popular then NRL

no ... that doesn't exist either ...

Keep up knucklehead!

There was a claim made that there are cumulative figures for TV ratings which cover every single part of Australia. I asked for a link to prove these exist. What, are we just going to take your word for it?

I never claimed it in first place... knucklehead

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

link to what ?
an alternate universe where the AFL is more popular then NRL

no ... that doesn't exist either ...

Keep up knucklehead!

There was a claim made that there are cumulative figures for TV ratings which cover every single part of Australia. I asked for a link to prove these exist. What, are we just going to take your word for it?

I never claimed it in first place... knucklehead

You gave a BS respondse to a post of mine that asked for a link

Knucklehead

It's a burp machine, Xman. Not a knucklehead.