Talking Footy

pussycat wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:14 am

There will be considerably more in the semis.

In the final. In last years AFL GF I think there was about 900 metro viewers from the Northern States. I think it pretty safe to assume your semi will get a boost.



AFL is a crap game , I already new that. I don't want to hear your excuse!

pussycat wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:14 am

There will be considerably more in the semis.

In the final. In last years AFL GF I think there was about 900 metro viewers from the Northern States. I think it pretty safe to assume your semi will get a boost.



AFL is a crap game , I already new that. I don't want to hear your excuse!

NlolRL wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:47 am

pussycat wrote: Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:33 pm

According to
figure I just worked out, I'm pretty sure there right.

For the 5 capital cites only.

League states. 1 in every 299 thousand has a tv meter.

AFL states. 1 in every 293 thousand

For Regional areas.

League states. 1 in every 246 thousand

AFL 1 in every 244 thousand.

lets address this latest absurd claim. Your numbers would suggest the AFL metro markets have a 2% advantage, and 0.8% advantage in regional markets. This averages out to 1% advantage for all markets.

In other words a game rating 800k FTA, which is about average on FN, would give us a whopping advantage of 8k. Wow, no wonder we are leading 25-4!

However, I would imagine OZTAM would use a certain number of meters in Melbourne and Sydney, and divide these by each markets populations. 100 meters in Melbourne for 4 million = 40,000 people per meter. Sydney's 100 meters (example only) for 4.5 million people = 45,000 per meter. Therefore for every meter watching NRL in Sydney OZTAM count 45,000 viewers. It basically balances out

To suggest these ratings are incorrectly estimated using such a mistake is just ridiculous given how much money is allocated via ratings.

NlolRL wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:08 pm

Thats a complete guess.

My figures were an example. Using your figures OZTAM could simply divide 5.03m by 1475 so each meter represents 3,410 people. For melbourne they divide 4.67m by 1475 so each meter represents 3,166 people. Therefore the meters accurately represent the population.

I mean seriously, you honestly think the networks would allow their advertising revenue to be determined by incorrectly gathered data?

pussycat wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:24 pm

NlolRL wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:08 pm

Thats a complete guess.

My figures were an example. Using your figures OZTAM could simply divide 5.03m by 1475 so each meter represents 3,410 people. For melbourne they divide 4.67m by 1475 so each meter represents 3,166 people. Therefore the meters accurately represent the population.

I mean seriously, you honestly think the networks would allow their advertising revenue to be determined by incorrectly gathered data?

These are from the figures that Oz Tam puts out . And there is no problem. It shows they clearly favour the AFL states. So the fact that they still get less ratings each year is even more pathetic than how pathetic than I originally thought you fumblers were.

pussycat wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:09 am

The only thing I find funny(besides you link) is your ratings. There pathetic.

There is nothing wrong with rating system. It does slightly favour the AFL but despite, despite less matches, RL still manages to come up more ratings every year.

A big Melbourne Audience last. The storm should have more post match presentations it really seems to attract the Mexicans.