OzTAM to lift number of ratings households, track online viewing.
OzTAM is set to lift the number of households in its survey panel and begin tracking online viewing of TV in 10% of homes.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Ratings service provider OzTAM is set to lift the number of households in its survey panel and begin tracking online viewing of TV programmes in 10% of homes.
OzTAM CEO Doug Peiffer said, “We are also pleased to announce that over the course of 2012 the OzTAM panel size will increase from 3,035 homes to 3,500 homes, ensuring OzTAM’s continued world’s-best positioning compared to any TAM panel in any market.”
It will raise the number of panel homes to 950 in Sydney; 900 in Melbourne; 650 in Brisbane; 500 in Adelaide; 500 in Perth.
10 per cent of panel homes will have both their TV sets and their PCs metered for viewing of broadcast TV content.
“We are currently working with Nielsen to develop the options for reporting viewing across multiple screens and to provide initial top line insights to the marketplace later this year.”
OzTAM has also extended its contract with data suppliers Nielsen for television audience measurement (TAM) services in the five Australian metropolitan markets to 2017.
“This new agreement leverages OzTAM’s substantial investments including the introduction of its Time Shift Viewing service, upgrading all panel homes to the state-of-the-art UNITAM metering system and decisions this year to increase the size of the OzTAM panels,” said Peiffer.
David Ellem, CEO of Nielsen’s Television Audience Measurement business in Australia, added: “Television viewing habits are evolving as new technologies create additional opportunities to view and we look forward to working with OzTAM to help Australian media owners, agencies and advertisers understand and leverage these developments in the coming years.”
In the recent Audience Inventory, 80% of TV Tonight readers indicated they had never been asked to participate in a Ratings Survey.
OzTAM is jointly owned by Seven, Nine and TEN.
55 Responses
@unclepete Advertisers do not pay as much for online adds than ones aired on television, so just in terms of generating enough revenue to impact on the fate of the show. Also while things like view count could be measured very easily, this would provide no further information on things such as demographics
Thanks for the reply David 🙂
Not 100% sure I agree with OzTAM’s logic on this and I think those things you mentioned should be fairly easy to fix but that it is a bit clearer now.
@tex – well duuhhhh it’s speculation. That is why I said “could have” 😉 – you will also notice that I said I doubt it. But tell me, is it totally outside the bounds of possibility that this could actually be the case? I’ll tell you right now that however statistically unlikely it is, it is by no means impossible. That is all I was saying.
Again, it all comes down to the sampling. And how do we know that this is accurate? Just because someone fits into a certain age range (for example) does not mean that they will watch the same shows as most others their age.
One thing I am curious of though is why they are only going to track 10% of online viewing (and that is ony 10% of the people already in the survey – so 300ish households). With online viewing it would be possible to track every single viewer. It wouldn’t be labour intensive or expensive as this could be done automatically and as far as demographics are concerned this could be done by a brief survey at the start, similar to how people with ratings boxes are supposed to alter the settings when someone visits (by the way, this last point would throw a spanner into any careful sampling as well, wouldn’t it? Even a small spanner).
US currently tracks 50% of online viewing, so Aus will start with 10% and then expand. There are many more factors to work around for online, including that not all things are equal yet. iView = 1 title, 1 play. But other networks break up their shows on their catch up sites, and the commercial breaks will need to match on air in order to be equitable. iPads are also not in the mix, just PCs for now. Basically we’re following the same baby steps as the US.
@unclepete: “Remember a few weeks ago when Ten Breakfast had an audience of zero in Melbourne? Does anyone really think that absolutely no one watched it?”
No – but I’d happily accept that < 20,000 people watched it, which is (a) well into the estimated error range & (b) not too different from the ratings it's actually been achieving (33,000?).
The rest pretty much falls under David's "back it up, not speculate" request.
@David: “The short answer is Seven, Nine and TEN own OzTAM. If they were dissatisfied with the sampling don’t you think they would change it?”
Wasn’t there a bit of a kerfuffle when OzTAM first started over the sampling though? If I remember correctly, virtually overnight 7 caught up to 9 and 9 was not happy. I am sure that 9 even threatened to pull out of OzTAM at one stage if the sampling were not re-done.
What happened in this instance, by the way? Was the sampling “tweaked” or did 9 just give up for no reason?
As other people have stated the sample size is fine if and only if the sampling is correctly done. I am fairly certain (on my cynical side) that if the ratings began to slip for 7 and 9 then the sampling would be adjusted accordingly.
The scariest things about ratings, to me, is that I find it hard to believe that most of Australia watches such crap TV. 😉
Well, I for one, do not think that the sample size is fine, no matter what statisticians (read “liars”) say.
And by the way, the above comment about statisticians being liars is a joke, based on an older joke… just in case anyone with thick glasses and pocket protectors decides to hunt me down 😉
Mistakes are made at times. Remember a few weeks ago when Ten Breakfast had an audience of zero in Melbourne? Does anyone really think that absolutely no one watched it? No, what it meant was that no one with a ratings box watched it. In theory it could have been watched by over a million people (I doubt it, but it is possible)…
@jco75. I would redo the calculation but please read through all the other comments. The sample size is fine. I can feel an example exercise coming on…but I can feel David thinking..hold back..hold back! :)) And of course you think some shows could do better under a different method…but they could of course do far worse.
So, even if we allow that the metro population 1s 13000000, that is a sampling of 0.00023% dictating what is deemed “successful”.
So this could actually mean that shows like Breakfast, Don’t Tell the Bride and The Shire could be winning their timeslots if the sampling was more accurate! :O)
But seriously, how can this be allowed? Why do the networks (escpecially the ones that seem to rate lower like TEN) accept this innaccurate information? It could mean that the livelihood of shows, presenters, actors and networks hang in this ridiculous balance.
With this in mind I will hold on to my firm belief that we will one day discover that the bulk of the country has in fact been watching TEN and ABC2 the whole time!
jco72: The short answer is Seven, Nine and TEN own OzTAM. If they were dissatisfied with the sampling don’t you think they would change it? The long answer is, if you are claiming the info is inaccurate you need to back it up, not speculate.
@Tex…it’s all been said across the array of comments here. And you’re right that free-choice would tend to skew the results.
For those that seem mystified as how a few thousand homes can account for the millions in the country – have you never heard of polling? Sampling? Quality control?
Are you so ignorant of statistical sampling and the many ways it’s used in modern society that you really think they need to directly count every household to get the information the advertisers and networks need? They don’t, and sampling like this is much faster and much, much cheaper and less invasive of people’s privacy too.
It’s not the nineteenth century anymore, nowadays the only time we really count everyone for almost anything is when counting the votes in elections and the five-yearly census (which is supplemented by statistical samples in-between and could easily be replaced by them if the politicians had the courage).
@bindi: Why do you assume the purpose of the ratings system is to ensure “your voice is being acurrately represented”? It’s not…
“if they can manufacture a cheap option for say under $50 I would definitely pay to have my interests represented, and a lot of other frustrated viewers probably would to”
And by limiting the survey to ‘people who are willing to pay to have their preferences recorded’, you’d immediately make any result obtained non-representative & worthless…
(There’s a whole lot I could say on the differences between a survey & a census, and sampling & survey design, but this ain’t the place for it.)
Another problem with monitoring everyone’s viewing habits: privacy. Not everyone will be keen on having their TV monitored.
If this sample of people is so accurate why not hold elections the same way? If the people elected are so definitely going to end up the same why not save on the cost of elections. Would you feel comfortable having your vote taken away and the fate of the country being left up to some group of a few thousand people? I certainly understand why so many of us feel under-represented by the current ratings system, unless you actually got a vote in you will never feel as though your voice is being acurrately represented. While tv and government are very different things for many people tv has a far greater daily impact on our lives than any politicians, tv may seem trivial but it is often used to influence and shape the opinions of the public. Personally I would pay to have a ratings device attached to my PVR, if they can manufacture a cheap option for say under $50 I would definitely pay to have my interests represented, and a lot of other frustrated viewers probably would to, once you know your voice has been heard it is a lot easier to accept the results.
Oh come on it can’t be that hard, esp since most new tv’s now come with internet connection i think that would make it easier. Was just an opinion.
I’d actually respond to Ryan in a slightly different way. There are numerous electronic methods for assessing and collating data across large populations. National school testing systems are an example of that where nigh on everyone is ‘tested’. They are indeed expensive because the test mechanism itself is paper based albeit that the assessment and reporting aspects are done by machine.
So, in the lateral thinking sense, could the ratings system be done differently? Is it absolutely a requirement that boxes as we know them are used?
It could well be that with advances in television technology that ‘we’ could all tap into a central mechanised database and ratings systems could become inbuilt into the television or indeed within your computer. The establishment cost would be very high but all systems – fta, sky etc – would contribute to and benefit.
The issue of demographics is of course a key issue and you would need to be willing to offer that and the system would also need to be able to distinguish between users. I suspect that any such system would only offer one user per household based on IP information.
Because my post is already long, please don’t think I am advocating this, just musing…and ryan, samples are fine as long as the selection process is credible and reliable.
Yes, any ‘let’s measure everyone’s viewing!!’ idea falls short when faced with the commercial reality. Television ratings exist primarily to tell advertisers how many people in their target demo watched the ads in their campaign (and how many times).
A magical system of ratings where every television is measured (aside from being impossible with terrestrial broadcasting) gives advertisers no demographic information. It’s certainly possible with IPTV or Pay TV boxes but… it’s pointless without the age/gender of the viewer.
@ryan – should I assume that you haven’t read the comments prior to yours? You do understand that the data is collected to provide advertisers with information about who is watching their ads? The simple totals for each program are only of interest to people who treat TV ratings as some sort of sport, and for the networks to spin into headlines for the general media.
In addition to the very good points that David has mentioned (with cost being the major factor), your suggestion would also require the collection of a massive amount of personal data – age, sex, location, occupation, etc. I don’t know what percentage of people would agree to this information being known by OzTAM or how and where it would be stored to meet Australian legislative requirements.
Google does it’s magic because you bought an internet-enabled device, bought an internet connection, and choose to use their software and services. They are also worth quite a bit so are able to invest in the necessary tech. I guess OzTAM could record what everyone is watching if we all agree to buy a box from them and pay for it’s connection and the transfer of data.
There’s a reason why the ABS only conducts its census every 5 years.
@tommythetommy…I didn’t see anyone here suggest that ratings are made out of “thin air”. Not everyone understands research stats and research terms and processes. This isn’t a research blog after all. I agree however that factual information is findable. Explanatory information does sometimes need clarification or additional review for those unfamiliar with the field as already suggested.
@Tommy,thank you,I will look up the site.I’d also like to add that I never suggested the industry makes up ratings out of thin air,I just had genuine questions about the whole rating process and how households are found.
Still dunno why Networks keep this ratings system. I mean we are living in 2012 and not the 1980’s. I don’t see any reason why in this day and age we can’t monitor everyone’s viewing habits. 3500 compared to 23million is a bit off the mark if you ask me, its actualy laughable. I mean look at what google can do! it knows everything! Billions of us use it and it can track our every move. Maybe google should take over oztam lol.
Ryan if you don’t see any reason why we can’t monitor everyone’s habits here are a few: No country in the world does this. It would be incredibly expensive, so who would wear the cost? You? Networks? If it’s the latter, start to kiss some of your favourite shows goodbye, or be prepared for way more ads. Or maybe you are suggesting you send an email every night at 2am with your list of what you watched? But where’s the reliability in that? We have a higher per capita penetration of ratings boxes than many countries, including the US. Statisticians will tell you that even with a larger sample you will ultimately net similar results.
Seriously it’s not that hard to answer every question posed in this thread.
oztam.com.au has detailed information on how households are chosen – the initial contact (to complete a general survey on the TV and demographic characteristics of the household) is random. The actual selection of households is not – homes are chosen according to the statistical need of the panel.
And regionaltam.com.au tells you the same information for the Regional markets, including Tasmania.
It boggles my mind that people think a $3 billion television industry just makes up ratings out of thin air.
I live in Tassie, was rang maybe 6 weeks ago about becoming one of the people with ratings boxes. I assume we get counted as ‘regional’??
@Mr J… I was going on the figures being cast here within the discussion but you’re correct and if I had been more astute I would have looked at up too!
Tasmanian figures are included in regional statistics as are Victorian and Queensland and say northern NSW. I presume it is based on population or similar. Did you guys look at the OzTam site and run ‘tasmania’ in their search frame?
@SusanP, remember that all of this is metro viewers only, so the population is 13million not 22mil.