Why clash of television titans is a pointless charade for advertisers

Seven Sharp team: Ali Mau with Greg Boyed (left) and Jesse Mulligan
Geoff Lealand

When the much-vaunted clash of the television titans in the form of Campbell Live and Seven Sharp gets under way on Monday all eyes will be on the ratings.

Can the new kid on the block, Seven Sharp, hold or build on to the solid ratings of its predecessor Close Up or will it get trounced by the tried and true Campbell Live?

It is a question which TV One and TV3, not to mention their advertisers, will be fixated on for the foreseeable future.

Every morning as they retrieve the previous night’s ratings there will be a deathly silence as they scan each and every demographic to see who is getting the upper hand.

Depending on who is in the ascendancy, there will be some desperately serious soul-searching from the underdog – masked, of course, by an outward air of nonchalance and insouciance.

The sad reality, though, is that all television executives are besotted with ratings, venting their spleen on hapless producers and presenters when viewing figures head south.

Meaningless pastime
But what they do not realise, or wish to admit, is that the ratings game is a ridiculous and meaningless pastime.

It is a phony war that’s played out by otherwise sane and sensible people.

There’s a lot of pseudo scientific hocus pocus about the way ratings are determined, and despite what those in the television industry say it is all smoke and mirrors.

Ratings are largely determined by 600 “People Meters” placed in homes around the country which supposedly contain a cross-section of around 1500 New Zealanders.

They are designed to measure viewing habits by taking regular readings of who is watching what at any given time of the day and feeding the results to television companies and advertising agencies.

What they deliver is so inexact as to be risible. But no one tells the advertisers this as they may start wondering whether the $650 million a year they shell out on television advertising is being targeted at the right programmes.

Sure, the meters provide a snapshot of what people may be watching, but they do not say whether they are actually paying attention to the programme in question or whether they think it’s good, bad or indifferent.

Neither do they take account of the increasing numbers of people who record programmes on My Sky and watch them later on, or those who might be surfing the net or snoozing while the telly is on.

But more importantly from the advertiser’s perspective, they do not have the ability to tell whether anyone is actually watching their ads, let alone paying much attention to them.

Yet every day television and advertising executives pour over the previous night’s ratings as if they were the Holy Grail.

Little more than a lottery

For their own peace of mind they should acknowledge that the ratings game is little more than a lottery and back their own judgment when it comes to deciding what viewers like or dislike.

For me, the ultimate proof a programme or story has hooked in a large audience is the amount of feedback you get afterwards – be it in the form of emails, text messages, phone calls, letters or whatever.

But, curiously, this is rarely reflected in the “official” ratings.

It never failed to amuse me in my television days that stories which attracted a flood of correspondence often failed to rate, which suggested to me People Meters are about as useful as a crystal ball.

Geoff Lealand, the associate professor of screen and media studies at Waikato University, who has himself worked in television audience research in New Zealand and Britain, has similar misgivings about them.

“I argue ratings are essentially quantitative measurements of self-reported behaviour – for example, people pressing buttons, and thus subject to human error, inertia, inattention, etc.

“However, such thin information is continuously used and misused to make qualitative judgments about our responses to programming and advertising.

“In addition, People Meters cannot account for an educated use of the remote, most especially the mute button.”

Most serious flaw
Dr Lealand told NBR ONLINE the most serious flaw with the meters is that “presence in a room where a television set is on, which is all that they claim to record, will never be the same as the practice of watching television”.

“This was once again demonstrated in the argument over the audience for TVNZ7 last year where viewing figures were misused, deliberately or otherwise.”

He says the viewing panel of around1500 individuals is biased towards “older, settled nuclear” family groups and under-represents young viewers, especially students and renters as well as significant ethnic groups.

“All that AC Nielsen claim to measure, through people remembering to push buttons on the special remote, is “presence” in a room where a television set is on.

“All the rest is speculation, conjecture and guesswork.”

So how does Dr Lealand believe Seven Sharp and Campbell Live will fare given such a flawed system?

“If Seven Sharp is going after the same sort of young audience as John Campbell, as seems to be their intention, I think they may well be disadvantaged by the current ratings system, given the minimal representation of young, non-home-owning viewers in the People Meter panel.

“Like them, even though I am not of that demographic, I will continue watching Shortland Street at 7pm.”


3 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

3 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Campbell Live has the stuff people want to watch in this current economic climate, not the right time for light hearted, fun stuff that is ok to watch when times are good.

  • 0
  • 0

I'll be watching it tomorrow, in the hope of cadging a set of cerated steak knives.

  • 0
  • 0

Your article and comments are spot on.

The only way to get meaningful data is to survey your target demographic and ask them two questions:
a) Did you see xyz advertisement?
b) Did you purchase the relevant advertised product or service or if its a behaviour modification advert, did you modify your behaviour or if its a brand awareness ad did it increase brand awareness?

If the TV managers were smart they would jointly talk to Nielsons about a new system because the biggest con at the moment is actaully not the ratings system but what advertisers are paying for print ads versus TV,radio or online.

The last NZ survey I saw indicated that of the four mediums (print, TV, radio, online) print was "consumed" by 8% of viewers/readers/listeners but accounted for around 40% of the advertising spend!!

The focus should be changed from "ratings" to the advertisement itself and what actions followed from viewing the ad.

Heres what is needed:

1) Change the current demographic break downs to something meaningful that reflects actual target audiences. The current system is seriously flawed in this respect particulalry when it comes to products/services targeting the 60 plus baby boomers where there is a lot of discretionary spending capability. Similarly the affluent younger singles who are increasingly putting off the children until later (if at all)and are focused on "spending".
2) Establish a truly represenative "panel" in each demographic that are prepared to fill in a regular online survey which identifies the various ads across all four advertising mediums (but only those relevant to their demographic)and asks the above two questions. They would need to be paid for this but probably not a lot and as an advertiser I would be more than prepared to contribute to this. Alternatively maybe they get free products/services from the advertisers. There could be some meaningful follow up research from this approach.
3) I believe around 8 demographic groups (4 male, 4 female of around 200 each) would be needed. Sub demos of say 50 based on income/interests could also be developed. At $50 per week each paticipant, that works out at just over $4 million per annum which compared to the total advertising spend is a drop in the bucket and would provide really meaningful data across all demos and media platforms. Not sure the print guys would be keen but ultimately the advertisers would drive this and it would be great for the TV/radio and online platforms who (in terms of the TV guys)because of the crazy ratings system have been competing with each other and driving the prices down below what they should be compared with print.

Anyway my thought for the day. Like to hear other views!!

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7044 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.9423 0.0027 0.29%
EUR 0.6278 0.0006 0.10%
GBP 0.5438 0.0009 0.17%
HKD 5.4872 0.0009 0.02%
JPY 78.7540 0.1760 0.22%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1253.1 7.190 2017-05-24T00:
Oil Brent 54.2 -0.210 2017-05-24T00:
Oil Nymex 51.4 -0.130 2017-05-24T00:
Silver Index 17.1 -0.020 2017-05-24T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 7430.0 7436.4 7421.8 0.17%
NASDAQ 6183.0 6207.6 6163.0 0.58%
DAX 12693.8 12697.7 12642.9 -0.17%
DJI 21063.0 21112.3 21012.4 0.23%
FTSE 7514.9 7529.7 7514.9 0.04%
HKSE 25511.5 25680.7 25428.5 0.80%
NI225 19737.2 19850.9 19743.0 0.36%
ASX 5769.0 5790.5 5769.0 0.36%