0/5

Viewers told “Too much ABC” prohibited them from ratings surveys

Talkback callers claim their preference for ABC precluded them from participating in TV ratings surveys.

2014-08-01_0121In further scrutiny of the television ratings, talkback callers to ABC radio yesterday said they had been told rejected as panel homes because they predominantly watched ABC TV.

‘Bev in Echuca’ said told 774 host Jon Faine that, “A couple of years ago I was contacted by a company and asked would I take part in the ratings survey. When I said ‘When I really only watch the ABC’ they said ‘No thanks, we won’t have you take part in the survey then.'”

‘Peter in Moe’ told Faine that about 15 years ago he had been in the ratings system for 3 years but they were excluded after 2 years when family members moved out and habits changed. A technician removed the box.

“He said ‘No we weren’t watching the programmes they wanted us to watch,'” said Peter.

“As the son left home and the daughter found a boyfriend and moved out, the viewing habits changed. So it always amazes me when I see how the ABC channels are rated and I wonder whether there are actually black boxes in the houses where people watch ABC.”

Faine read out other SMS messages to the show:

– “My son-in-law told me they took away his family’s box and told him ‘You are watching too much ABC.'”

– “A friend has had a box for years and years … it’s incredible because out of all my friends she hardly watches any TV.”

“Katie in Richmond” said she boycotted “a particular show on a particular network” because “I was sure what I did counted” before admitting it was a football-related show.

TV Tonight understands a number of other messages which were not read out on air also claimed they were excluded from ratings because they were largely ABC viewers.

OzTAM, which collects ratings data for 5 city metro from 3500 homes, is jointly owned by Seven, Nine and TEN.

RegionalTAM is responsible for ratings in regional Australia.

17 Responses

  1. I’m having another think about his in regards to who oversees the dissemination of data collected and what the regulated obligations are, or even if there is any?, and who enforces or monitors the accuracy of these rating figures.

    Because if it is not sheer arrogance by 7-9-10, I can not comprehend any reason for them not to collect data about a competitor such as the ABC, and find it hard to believe they would not want to know exactly when and what viewers are watching on the ABC?.

    Just how does it go, ‘keep your friends close, but always keep your enemies closer’

  2. I agree with Russell. Rating systems are simply there to set advertising venue. Outside of this all they do is encourage herd mentality among the networks.

    The ABC should be exempt from ratings, due to the fact they have their own code of practice. As long as this code is been met, then there shouldn’t be any issues.

    Furthermore focusing on ratings for the ABC is a mistake. The broadcaster is in a unique position to have a point of difference, something that will disappear if they become ratings focused.

  3. I’d have to number myself these days as one who mainly watches ABC-TV, though at time even the ABC has nothing to watch for me. the commercial stations are addicted to fake “reality” shows, SBS has far too many cooking shows(just one cooking show is a thousand too many!) so that leaves ABC but Thursdays, Fridays and weekends see me more often than not, turning off the TV and doing things on my computer.

  4. I don’t see the logic in saying someone shouldn’t be included because they only watch one channel. As strange as it may seem, there are people out there who only watch the ABC. Just like there are people who only watch Seven or Nine.

    The system is designed to take a small sample of the population based on demographics to mirror the wider population and their viewing habits.

    People who only watch one channel are part of the general public, and their viewership isn’t any less valid than someone who watches multiple channels, so excluding them from the survey would guarantee inaccurate results.

  5. @ Pertinax

    Strange logic re your example of zero evidence???

    Couldn’t it be that even the die hard commercial viewers who will put up with FTA treating them like Zombies most of the time, ;actually watch the ABC for a flash back of how good they were treated in the good old days, where viewers were not taken for granted and FTA were not a vehicle for vested interests to ensure they are our defacto government of the day;

    Could it possibly also explain the current blatant attacks of that very Network called the ABC

  6. My mum would love this report as she’s always saying why do people watch all that crap on the commercial stations while the ABC has (mostly) quality drama.

  7. I was told exactly this by a friend who worked there almost ten years ago. It’s supposed to be about demographics but people were pulled out of surveys based on viewing habits alone. He said ABC viewers were specifically targeted and it came about after pressure from the commercial networks. I doubt anything has changed since then. On the one hand you could say it doesn’t matter because it’s just a game about advertising but ratings are still important to ABC (and SBS) because they are linked to funding.

  8. If I owned a TV network and one third of the ratings agency, I too would ditch ABC viewers from taking part. My goal would be to shaft as many $$ from advertisers while spending as little as I could on content…..makes good business sense

  9. since I discovered that I can watch what I want when I want apart from my code of Footy I wonder at the mental age of people who watch Commercial TV.
    It is 1005 rubbish I include the News in that as it and truth are a long way apart

  10. When McNair Anderson and Newman were sacked by the TV stations from doing ratings and it was announced that the commercial stations would be starting a new collective to do their own ratings I thought it was a joke. The advertisers would never swallow this, I thought. But they were forced to. I’m not the least bit surprised that a company owned by the commercial TV stations which provides data to advertisers about viewing habits would be kicking people out if they watch the ABC. The more people watch the ABC the less eyeballs watching ads and less revenue for the commercial TV bosses. Join the dots…

  11. Actual evidence presented for this conspiracy theory — zero. Given that the ABC often dominates in non-ratings and on on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights, and has been beating Ten often, how can the panel be biased against the ABC?

    The panel is constantly rotated to be balanced to demographics and household size and people rarely stay on it for more than a few years ,so nothing odd there.

    What Friends Of The ABC say technicians told them should be taken with a grain of salt, like with any urban legend.

    And If you say you are only ever going to watch one channel or you are going to boycott football to make a political statement, they would be a valid reason for not being selected.

  12. The more I see of how the ratings are worked out the more I suspect that they’re skewed.

    When the disparate group of individuals that I work with are all talking about something on SBS (Vikings and Fargo being such examples), but the official ratings are minuscule compared to some singing contest or reality show on 7, 9, or 10, it makes me wonder if something is hideously awry.

    One can argue that ratings are only there for advertisers, but when we have a government looking for ‘value for money’ from the ABC and SBS questions need to be asked.

  13. From what was stated about complete and utter rejection to the ABC viewers getting the box, there is no way it should be jointly owned by the 3 networks! It should all be independently owned to prevent bias and give the most reliable information. In this day and age something like this is unbelievable!

  14. Do people even know how the boxes work? They’re based on demographics, and people are chosen based on their family make up and responses to a questionaire.
    So when a person straight up admits their bias (I only watch the ABC), yes, they’ll be excluded, because they don’t want people who are more likely to fudge the numbers. Or, it may e that it was another question that excluded them.

    The person whose box was taken away after family members moved out is correct. If the family was included because they had “a dad, a mum, and two kids in an age bracket” and becomes “couple in the 50+ category”, the household demographic change would shift the ratios, and they would not be required.

  15. As has been stated by others in other stories about the ratings system, the tiny number of households used is fine statistically.

    What has not been stated by supporters of the system is that statistically this is only true if the stratifying of the selection of participants is robust and genuine. Otherwise bias will enter into the results.

    With recent stories of payment to those that have boxes and now this, my personal suspicions that a ratings system owned and run by those with invested interests is bound to be flawed seems to be being confirmed.

Leave a Reply