In the 25-54 demographic on 9/7/07 Countdown with Keith Olbermann had 365,000 viewers. The O’Reilly Factor had 324,000. Bill O still has a huge lead in total audience, but Olbermann isn’t going away (even as MSNBC continues to stuff their schedule with failing conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough).
Good god, Tucker sucks in the ratings. Then again, so does Glenn Beck but he’s still around.
Also of note, there are 7 hours of Prime Time, Fox only won two of them, as did MSNBC. CNN won three. The trends are certainly not looking good for the Fox Network.
A question, if I may. I presume you’re highlighting the 25-54 demo instead of total viewers because that’s what advertisers care more about (and not simply because it makes Olbermann look better.) Why then, are you using Live+DVR numbers instead of Live numbers? Are you claiming that Advertisers care more about DVR users? Or is that merely reality-based thinking?
Live + DVR? Where does it say on the site that this is live + DVR?
Right under the Numbers. If you’re still having trouble, search for the phrase:
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.
The actual Live numbers? Not so Olber-iffic.
Probably more people record Countdown than O’Reilly. I never watch Countdown live because I’m doing something other than sitting in front of the TV when it is on. But I always watch it later in the evening. On the one hand, advertisers should care as much or more about DVR users, because they are more likely to be daily viewers. On the other hand, they (we) fast-forward through the ads anyway, so maybe they shouldn’t care about us.
“Right under the Numbers.”
Good god, that’s tiny.
It’s what Nielsen uses, so that’s probably what the advertisers care about.
At least these numbers have explicit descriptions of what they are and how they’re arrived at with them.
Gen. Petraeus figures? Not so much.
Pure speculation on my part, but I would argue that the 25-54 group is far more likely to use technology to watch Olbermann’s than O’Reilly’s 25-54 demographic. Most of us learned about Olbermann from great YouTube rants and other Internet sources (we certainly didn’t learn about it from MS-NBC promos while watching their other shows). As such, there is probably a higher level of technology users in Countdown’s demographics. I don’t know if this is measured. It’d be interesting to find out though.
Nice rug Bill-O
Why would you exclude the DVR number? I watch KO via Tivo myself.
Fox viewers are fat, ignorant couch potatos sitting watching TV all day. Olbermann viewers are out and about doing things (working, hanging out with the opposite sex, enjoying life), so they TiVo it or record it for later viewing.
Duh.
To be troll devil’s advocate, I guess the argument could be that DVR data isn’t as reliable because recordings aren’t necessarily watched, thus while the program was taped it doesn’t imply someone actually viewed it (or rather, viewed the ads, which is all the ratings people actually care about).
But you could make the same argument that leaving a TV on doesn’t necessarily mean someone’s actually watching it, so I don’t really get why it’s being raised other than to redirect the conversation about a technical issue other than the issue of Olbermann having more relevant viewers than O’Reilly.
Advertisers don’t care if you watch via DVR because you’re not watching commercials.
And if you ARE counting DVR views, then why don’t you also include the numbers for Factor repeats, which haul in more viewers (total AND demo) than Countdown does live?
DVR viewings are only counted if you watch the program within 7 days of recording.
For the last time troll, Oliver is measuring VIEWERS from 25-54, not viewers that advertisers care about. That’s your little childish game.
Do you ever get tired of being such a dick? Is it SO important that Democrats be wrong that you have to contest EVERY menial point?
Get a life boy. I suggest the military.
And if you ARE counting DVR views, then why don’t you also include the numbers for Factor repeats, which haul in more viewers (total AND demo) than Countdown does live?
Because that makes no statistical sense and no legitimate ratings monitor would, only comment trolls just grasping for any math to make the numbers work for them? How exactly would O’Reilly airing twice as much but not pulling twice the ratings as Olbermann AND being beating in both slots in the key demographic count as a better net market share? Answer: it doesn’t.
Get over it, sport. The actual people who how ratings work rely on the actual numbers, not angry right-wing gnats on a message board explaining that they should use special math just so they can pretend they’re right.
Aww, picking on Joe Scarborough? He’s a loon, but as far as conservatives go, I’ll take him over the rest.
For the last time troll, Oliver is measuring VIEWERS from 25-54, not viewers that advertisers care about.
If we’re looking at VIEWERS (instead of “viewers that advertisers care about”), then O’Reilly STILL trumps Olbermann.
What logical pretzel do you have to twist yourself into in order to exclude one group of viewers that advertisers don’t care about (non 25-54 year olds) but include another group of users that advertisers don’t care about (DVR users)?
Yes, VIEWERS from 25-54 means that Olbermann beat O’Reilly 9/7/2007. People who use DVR are still VIEWERS. Grow up.
If VIEWERS are VIEWERS, then you can’t ignore the non 25-54 year olds, which puts Olbermann back in 2nd place. Count one and not the other and you’re engaging in some pretty suspect cherrypicking.
Except that isn’t the point Oliver was trying to make. Read his post again and report back when you acquire a brain.
“Fox viewers are fat, ignorant couch potatos sitting watching TV all day.”
This is actually quite true. CNN has more viewers than Fox, but the people watching CNN tend to tune in for 15 minutes at a time for a few times a day. Fox viewers tend to watch Fox for hours at a time.
“If VIEWERS are VIEWERS, then you can’t ignore the non 25-54 year olds, which puts Olbermann back in 2nd place. Count one and not the other and you’re engaging in some pretty suspect cherrypicking.”
I’ll say it again, “It’s what Nielsen uses, so that’s probably what the advertisers care about.”
Ferris Wheel, even if you’re right, considering that the majority of people that fall under O’Riley’s major demograph will be dead within the next five years, his long-term popularity doesn’t look too good.
CS:
It’s NOT what Neilsen uses. It’s one of the (vast many) numbers the company compiles and reports. The advertisers who buy time use the LIVE data.
Zython, your assumption is that people currently 25-54 won’t age. 25 years ago MTV owned the 18-49 demographic. But those same kids (who are now 33-74) aren’t still watching at the same rate because their tastes have changed as have their lives. Ditto the youth vote, which almost always leans left. Yet, once that demo gets old enough to settle down and start a family, they become more conservative.
Same with TV News. Sure, Countdown is fun and zany if you’re a drunk college kid. But once you grow up and want more responsible (by comparison) news, you turn to FOX.
PS. Monday’s numbers are in. Any guesses as to whether Olbermann was able sustain his numbers? Even in the cherrypicked faux demographic? Hmmm….
Shorter Farris: I just can’t admit that Oliver was right, so let me change the subject.
Longer Shorter Me: Oliver wasn’t right, because his numbers were cherrypicked. If I wanted to change the subject, I would have brought up Olbermann’s latest foot-in-mouth that FOX & Murdoch were worse than al Qaida.
That, however, has nothing to do with Olbermann’s (relative lack of) ratings performance.
Zython, your assumption is that people currently 25-54 won’t age. 25 years ago MTV owned the 18-49 demographic. But those same kids (who are now 33-74) aren’t still watching at the same rate because their tastes have changed as have their lives. Ditto the youth vote, which almost always leans left. Yet, once that demo gets old enough to settle down and start a family, they become more conservative.
And you’re making a faulty (not necessarily false) assumption that people drastically change their political views with age. Another theory is that their views stay relatively the same, but the political spectrum shifts. In other words, what’s seen as “liberal” now will be “conservative” in 50 years.
Besides, we’re talking about the 25-54 demograph. Most people that age have pretty much set in stone what they’re gonna be like. People (especially as they get older) are pretty resistant to change.
“Same with TV News. Sure, Countdown is fun and zany if you’re a drunk college kid. But once you grow up and want more responsible (by comparison) news, you turn to FOX.”
So 25-54 is drunken college student while you aren’t a grown up till your 70.
You’re a fucking tool.
I wonder if you’ll still act surprised when Countdown is beating O’Reilly more often than not?