Caller admits to faking viewers for the sake of ratings
"Grant" has a ratings box, but admits he magically adds extra viewers for shows he thinks deserve it.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Television is all about the numbers: the ratings, the shares, the revenue, the demos.
So there’s a whole lot at stake for every pair of eyeballs on any given show.
Which is why every story, headline and analysis about ratings is a hard-fought battle for those at the centre of it. There are millions of dollars involved, and billions on an annual basis.
We’re seeing some very creative use of programming and coding in order to massage those lately.
Recently a caller to an ABC radio programme who has had a ratings box for 2 years has let slip on mis-use of those precious boxes.
ABC702′s Dom Knight spoke to an anonymous listener -simply named Grant- who admitted to magically adding extra visitors to his ratings box for shows he felt deserved better numbers. Users are required to manually enter the age and demo of each viewer when watching TV.
“I’ll admit that I have added a couple of extra people on ‘good quality’ shows,” said Grant.
That way the shows he personally liked, would lift in the tally.
Grant explained that prolonged misuse of the box, such as leaving the TV on but going out for the day, usually results in an enquiry of some sort.
Of course like any large-scale survey it factors in a + / – to try to cover such “quirks.”
Some years ago I was on radio and similarly asked for calls.
Back then the system wasn’t as technical and required the viewer to also manually enter the show they were viewing. One caller told me they watched Nine News, but didn’t like Sam Newman at all, so they refused to punch in the numbers for other Nine shows. All hell broke loose for revealing such fakery, when in reality I was merely highlighting the system loopholes.
While we’re on the subject of ratings, I’ve been watching with interest the way other media are reporting results (which is entirely their editorial right). Some media have headlines today about The Block on top without any mention of its simulcast, which doesn’t exactly give full context. This kind of practice will probably mean networks try it on even more. It was similar for Family Feud, which probably explains why it is continuing for a third week by TEN.
On the other hand, there has been very little reportage of how strong TEN’s overall numbers have been of late. After two years of whacking them over their low numbers, it’s disappointing many have neglected to acknowledge wins on Thursday and Sunday, or that some of these numbers are the best in two years.
As far as I can see Mumbrella, The Guardian and Crikey have put some good context on this. Fairfax today details the roadblocking by The Block.
But last Friday there was barely a peep about TEN’s big win on Thursday. I’d be feeling pretty aggrieved about that if I was at TEN.
Share
- Tagged with Family Feud, Nine News, The Block
30 Responses
Last survey I filled out was last year or so.
Morgan Gallup Poll was at the door for a shopping survey, at the end they asked if I’d like to do a TV survey too, was a massive undertaking compared to back in the eighties, it was a very thick and incredibly detailed survey book, was a real chore so I won’t be doing any more!
Ok. Morgan does not do our Overnight ratings which are conducted by Nielsen / OzTAM.
I’ve never had a ratings box, but have filled out half a dozen surveys over the years, and I put fake stuff on all of them!
Always ticked the boxes for my favourite shows, even if I was out, or was watching something else.
Always increased the number of viewers watching for each program.
I’d assume lots of people do the same thing.
Must have been a loooong time ago! At least technology helps minimise these.
I suspect that Ten’s publicity dept has done so much cherry-picking lately that they could make a pie for each Australian if only they had more dough…
Russell: Yes they put out daily pressers full of various stats, but I must admit I have had to ask each time “This is the biggest audience since when…?”
Putting Family Feud on three channels doesn’t manipulate the ratings. The ratings accurately measure the total number of viewers who watched it across the 3 channels.
It increases the number of people watching FF at the expensive losing viewers who don’t want to watch FF but would have watched something on one of the secondary channels.
And none of the tricks fool media buyers or advertisers who measure the effect of advertising themselves. All it does is have a small influence over which shows the media talk about. But talking can be positive or negative.
A friends family got a ratings box a few years back. They were already big TV watchers so were very excited by this. They routinely used to add fake viewers for their favourite programs – I thought everyone did this?!
If the good press on Ten is not getting out – I’d say the publicist of the network is not doing their job. Do they even put out daily pressers David?
Two things a person can take away:
1) Statistically small samples are worthless
2) Nothing newsworthy happened today
All of you calling for compulsory tracking of everyone’s viewing you do realise this would violate a little concept called privacy? Are you also happy with the Govt tracking your internet viewing and phone calls?
What Tex said. If the sample size is both sufficiently representative and large enough, any incorrect data, whether caused by genuine recording errors or deliberate misrepresentation, should even out in the long run.
I’m more concerned about the attempted manipulation of the figures by the networks themselves through gimmicks such as road-blocking and creative coding.
In 2014, where so many people have smart phones, why on earth hasn’t a simple app been developed that puts a “remote” function in and your viewing get tracked that way?
Every PVR should have an inbuilt ratings box and it should be up to each individual household to decide whether they activate it or not.
Likewise all Foxtel boxes connected to the internet, should have the capability of delivering to Foxtel a more accurate ratings guide, as to those who are watching shows live, on demand or time-shifted.
I think if this was done, then we would get a fairer gauge of what people are really watching.
@dayman – Yeah that was Seven during Blue Heelers. I remember when I was in Newcastle and it also affected PRIME. No one could work out what was going on nor would PRIME put on any alternative programming. It was just a blank screen. Days later the SMH reported that watching dead air was the highest rating TV program of the day. I also remember John Wood appearing on air and apologizing on behalf of the network and promised an encore screening on a Saturday
television ratings is it really a big deal
Why can’t all TVs have a ratings box?
Proves the ratings system is an embarrassment and I bet a lot more people screw the system secretly, I know I would for my fav show.
I suspect Ten’s ratings would dip even further if this kind of thing never happened.
I agree networks do not know who has the boxes. I’ve no anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise.
I remember a few years ago there was something where one of the commercial networks went dead on air for a few hours. Yet some how in the ratings rated higher than SBS.
These are skewed and not representative.
I have a tv ratings box and I don’t cheat the system but our nielsen technician told me a story of a person who had called up a tv network after they had their ratings box installed and tried to ask for a bribe to watch their network. The network contacted nielsen and the person’s ratings box was immediately removed.
People lie. Good experiment/sample design and later statistical analysis recognises this and can account for it pretty well.
You’d expect that, given the longitudinal nature of peoplemeter surveys, the additional validation/tracking studies they do (or at least used to), all the demographic information they also capture, etc, they’ve got the effects of dicking around fairly well covered. Assuming they’re actually analysing the data, it won’t just be hidden in with the +/- uncertainty (although it will contribute to it…)
They should be rotating those boxes around more often than 2 years.
Friends of mine had a ratings box in the 1990s. You couldn’t just leave the TV on because it prompted you to push buttons on a remote every 15 minutes to prove you were watching. One of the later models had an IR sensor to detect if people were in the room.
We used to order pizza and go around there to boost the numbers for our favourite programmes. We were watching but if it wasn’t for the box we would often have been in another house doing it.
The networks don’t know, or at least are supposed to know, who has the boxes to stop manipulation of results.
When I did the ‘very’ older ratings…in a book….I also could have fudged the figures…but did not…although I often wondered if others succumbed to the temptation…
In this age of smart computer people…again I wonder if the boxes can be manipulated.
This is why I could never be trusted to have a ratings box. Let’s just say that Nine’s figures would take a sudden and dramatic dive.
A colleague of mine has a ratings box.
When the installer arrived to plug it in he warned that my colleague’s family would get visited by representatives of the 3 commercial networks, offering cash to boost the numbers watching their shows, and to leave the TV on their network all day and night.
So far he’s had at least one visit from a network, and told them to clear off (the cash offer isn’t that good!), and the family have continued to watch whatever they want.
I’ve long suspected that ratings figures aren’t right, they can probably never be wholly accurate – although in this digital day and age I don’t see why they can’t be improved – but hearing this tale just confirmed it for me.