13 replies to this topic

[Media Munger]

There was quite an interesting article on who OzTAM is and how the data is collected in the SMH this morning (if you can't get your hands on an SMH then just go to www.smh.com.au/tribalmind). After reading it, I think there is a bit of a privacy issue going on here were they actually record what the viewer is doing and sometimes send these tapes off to the networks. What if your doing something that is your own personal business not wanting to be seen by anyone else. To get an idea of what I am talking about if you haven't already read the article, please go to the site or grab your SMH and read it.

[Splashmo]

It was a joke, ATNI!

Edited by Splashmo, 12 June 2007 - 09:39 PM.

[Media Munger]

I know I just wanted to make a fuss over it. But in all seriousness, how does OzTAM record their data?

[Squee!]

I know I just wanted to make a fuss over it. But in all seriousness, how does OzTAM record their data?

Telephone Lines, Data Link...
People Meters are like an STB that connect to the TV and well, record what channel a participant is watching.
This data is then sent via phone line/data link or similar means to OzTAM.

[Norman]

http://www.oztam.com...ingsprocess.pdf

[Media Munger]

What if someone is flicking channels? Does it have to be on a certain channel for a certain period of time?

EDIT: Thanks Norman.

Edited by ATNI, 12 June 2007 - 09:50 PM.

[Media Munger]

After reading that, does that mean what I watch doesn't matter and won't affect the ratings?

[Norman]

Nope... only those with the data collection boxes.

[Media Munger]

So how do they get an accurate reading on exactly how many people were watching these programs if not everyone has a box? To me, it sounds like a lot of programs could be doing better or worse than what they really are.

[TGIF]

So how do they get an accurate reading on exactly how many people were watching these programs if not everyone has a box? To me, it sounds like a lot of programs could be doing better or worse than what they really are.

They take a broad spread (much like they do for employment figures) of people from various backgrounds and demographics, then multiply it so they've got a fairly accurate estimate.

That's my understanding, anway.

[Media Munger]

I would rather be part of the system than to be left out. It's like our voting system, you have to be in it to have a say.

[Squee!]

I would rather be part of the system than to be left out. It's like our voting system, you have to be in it to have a say.

You would be about 1 in 15,000 to 30,000 Households, depending on how you measure the scaling if you had one.

[TGIF]

I would rather be part of the system than to be left out. It's like our voting system, you have to be in it to have a say.

Not everyone wants to be, though - and if it was all MediaSpyers then the demographics would be all over the place and the balance would be ruined.

I read somwhere that having means you need to key into the box every 15 minutes who is watching, their age and other details - every 15 minutes. I'd go insane.

[TelevisionAU]

After reading that, does that mean what I watch doesn't matter and won't affect the ratings?

correct - Oztam's computers aren't psychic

They take a broad spread (much like they do for employment figures) of people from various backgrounds and demographics, then multiply it so they've got a fairly accurate estimate.

That's my understanding, anway.

pretty much - there is a formula that is accepted as standard practice for market research (eg. ratings etc.) so if they can capture the right people in their sample then they can be reasonably sure that it is a general reflection of the wider community. I haven't read the SMH article but i think the sample for a city the size of Sydney is only around a few thousand households at any one time (if my memory is right), under the old diary system it was even less.