PDA

View Full Version : Cubune article: Sox TV Ratings "Baffling"


Hitmen77
09-06-2005, 08:43 AM
My apologies if this has already been posted (and yes, I know this will be given the Gary Coleman "who cares?" graphic).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050905sherman,1,6456126.column?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

It was hard to follow the point Sherman was trying to make. For much of the article, he presents good reasons why this ISN'T a big deal (new neilsen system skews numbers). He also says to not get hung up on larger Cubs ratings because they have a larger fan base and points out that Cub ratings have plummeted.

But, then he throws in typical Cubune jabs like: "Also, there's the larger question of whether the Sox have captured the city's imagination. The ratings are a key barometer." and "Still, you would expect the Sox's numbers to be closer considering the kind of season they've had. It doesn't add up."

mccoydp
09-06-2005, 09:22 AM
Blah blah blah...more Sox hatin' coming from the Cubune.

cheeses_h_rice
09-06-2005, 09:25 AM
The Cubs are off nearly 30 percent on WGN and WCIU, dropping from a 9.1 to a 6.3, and they have slid from a 6.5 on Fox Sports Net in 2004 to a 4.1 on CSN in 2005.

Numerous factors are involved, but the major finger-pointing is aimed at Nielsen's new rating system. Officials contend it is skewing the numbers downward, and it goes beyond Sox and Cubs games.

Wait a minute. I thought the Flubs had the "world's best fans"? So how on earth is it possible that that wonderful team's ratings have dropped 30%?

The article seems to want it both ways -- the Flubs' ratings are down because of the new way Nielsen calculates viewership, but the Sox's ratings aren't up much because they're not loved by the city of Chicago.

Uh huh. Gotcha.

ilsox7
09-06-2005, 09:48 AM
I read the artcile to be more as an attacke on Nielsen than the Sox. There has been a lot of controversy with the new way they go about figuring out ratings and the disparity between the Sox and Cubs ratings this year is a prime example. I actually thought this was a fair look at things. And of course he is going to bring up whether or not the Sox have captured the imagination of the city, because that is a valid point and potential reason the Sox ratings may not be as high as one would think they'd be.

Overall, I think you've got a scenario here where the Niesen stuff is flawed which means the Sox ratings are up even more compared to last year. Cub ratings would still be down, just not as drastically, which seems to pass the common sense test.

Iwritecode
09-06-2005, 10:09 AM
Let's not get caught up in the fact that the Cubs still have bigger ratings. The team began the season with a much larger fan base than the Sox. It is going to take more than a prolonged hot streak for the Sox to catch the Cubs.

Can I get a big ole "no **** sherlock?!?" Comparing any team that's not owned by a nationwide newspaper that is show 50 times a year across the country on a superstation doesn't really make that much sense.

Still, you would expect the Sox's numbers to be closer considering the kind of season they've had. It doesn't add up.

This is the very next sentence and proves that he still doesn't get it. This sounds suspiciously like the attendance arguement...

schmitty9800
09-06-2005, 10:16 AM
Just because baseball ratings look lower doesn't mean Nielsen is rating TV viewership more poorly, it just means they're doing it differently. Nielsen ratings aren't meant for the public to care about, they're primarily meant for advertisers.

I personally do not care as to what the ratings are for any baseball game. Although, Sherman should probably figure out that any increase is good.

MUsoxfan
09-06-2005, 11:00 AM
Blah blah blah...more Sox hatin' coming from the Cubune.

I took it the opposite of that

slavko
09-06-2005, 11:00 AM
The numbers are there and they're gotten thru a reasonable method and you have to accept them as true. Anything Sherman or any poster here writes about them is spin and can be taken with a grain of salt. Deal with it.

mdep524
09-06-2005, 11:33 AM
My apologies if this has already been posted (and yes, I know this will be given the Gary Coleman "who cares?" graphic).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050905sherman,1,6456126.column?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

It was hard to follow the point Sherman was trying to make. For much of the article, he presents good reasons why this ISN'T a big deal (new neilsen system skews numbers). He also says to not get hung up on larger Cubs ratings because they have a larger fan base and points out that Cub ratings have plummeted.

But, then he throws in typical Cubune jabs like: "Also, there's the larger question of whether the Sox have captured the city's imagination. The ratings are a key barometer." and "Still, you would expect the Sox's numbers to be closer considering the kind of season they've had. It doesn't add up." Great points Hitmen. He makes all the points why this isn't a big deal- the re-definition of the ratings, comfortable 1st place lead, the Cubs are down 30% while the Sox are actually up... then he speculates the Sox haven't "captured the city's attention" and that the "ratings are a key barometer"... even though he made the case why the ratings are flawed. :kukoo:

And let's not forget the teaser on the front page: "Sox not a hit TV show" :rolleyes:

mjharrison72
09-06-2005, 12:44 PM
It's the way this is presented that truly reflects the bias inherent in the Trib. ANY other media outlet... that is, one without a conflict of interest, would have presented the article as such:

"Ratings for Chicago Cubs broadcasts are down more than 30 percent from last season, when they were legitimate playoff contenders until a late-season collapse. White Sox broadcast ratings, although lower than those of the Cubs, are up slightly over last season."

I find it absolutely discusting that this was framed in the "Sox fans aren't watching despite a playoff run" context, which buried the fact a third of Cubs fans aren't watching their dismal team. The bias is just usually not this blatant.

Flight #24
09-06-2005, 12:58 PM
Great points Hitmen. He makes all the points why this isn't a big deal- the re-definition of the ratings, comfortable 1st place lead, the Cubs are down 30% while the Sox are actually up... then he speculates the Sox haven't "captured the city's attention" and that the "ratings are a key barometer"... even though he made the case why the ratings are flawed. :kukoo:

And let's not forget the teaser on the front page: "Sox not a hit TV show" :rolleyes:

Any bets that if pinned down he'd say "well, those were added by come copy editor prior to publication, I didn't actually write those lines". I'd bet it's the same editor who penned the headline (not usually done by the writer).

SouthSide_HitMen
09-06-2005, 01:11 PM
The only thing "baffling" is how the Tribune thinks they can pass this attack off as news.


What baffles me is how anyone can buy the Tribune or watch WGN news (or WB programs) without

:chunks

These two pics pretty much sum up the Tribune / WB / WGN Media Empire:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/Kaiser0929/Dewey_beats_Truman.jpg

&

:cubune

pinwheels3530
09-06-2005, 10:42 PM
What the hell are the ratings anyways? I don't know anybody who has a Neilsen ratings box..........bottomline ratings are over rated!!!!

IowaSox1971
09-07-2005, 01:21 AM
The Trib is biased, there is no doubt about that. But I believe that Sherman is a Sox fan. During an interleague series a few years ago, he wrote a column about how he is a Sox fan and that when he was a kid he got sent to the principal's office for arguing with another kid that Bill Melton was better than Ron Santo.

In this case, I would believe it if he said a copy editor or someone else on the staff changed his column.

JB98
09-07-2005, 11:58 AM
What the hell are the ratings anyways? I don't know anybody who has a Neilsen ratings box..........bottomline ratings are over rated!!!!

Exactly. Other than the 21 games I have attended in person, I've watched practically every Sox game on TV. I don't have a ratings box, so I'm not counted in the viewership. The one person I know who has a ratings box lives in St. Louis. They don't seem to be too common.

Ol' No. 2
09-07-2005, 12:15 PM
This sounds suspiciously like the attendance arguement...Ding Ding Ding.....We have a winner. It's the same old tired story, thinly disguised this time, about how much more POPULAR the Cubs are. So all you people who want to be in with the POPULAR crowd should make sure you watch Cubs games so you won't be left out. Blech.

Iwritecode
09-07-2005, 12:53 PM
Ding Ding Ding.....We have a winner. It's the same old tired story, thinly disguised this time, about how much more POPULAR the Cubs are. So all you people who want to be in with the POPULAR crowd should make sure you watch Cubs games so you won't be left out. Blech.

The reason I said it is because of the line about how the Sox ratings have went up but not as much as expected. I seem to remember hearing the exact same comment about the Sox attendance in 2000.

I'll leave it alone now as to not get this thread thrown in the ****house.

Fenway
09-10-2005, 10:02 AM
This people meter system has flaws

I am not allowed to post exact numbers but compared to other cities, Chicago doesn't seem to be a huge baseball town ( this is not to say it isn't a great baseball town )

In some cities ( St Louis and head scratcher CLEVELAND ) games on the cable channel excede what the network stations are doing on many nights, that doesn't happen often in Chicago when you combine the Sox and Cubs numbers.

I suspect that this is partly because a large percentage of Chicago couldn't care less about baseball ( this is indicated by lukewarm support for spanish radio and tv baseball )

I also think some viewers on the North Side have had troble finding 37 on their cable outlets :wink:

SOXSINCE'70
09-10-2005, 11:52 AM
I also think some viewers on the North Side have had troble finding 37 on their cable outlets :wink:

Curiosity question,Fenway;do you have the MLB package??
And how do you know 37 is the Comcast channel in Chicago
if you live in Bah-ston.Or do you commute??

Once again,just curious.

LaHerdiaGrande35
09-11-2005, 09:05 AM
Of course the Sox TV isn't going to spike that much just because we're having a good year. Sox fans watch every game no matter what and don't just watch if the Sox are doing well, so obviously the ratings should stay consistent. Cub's fans on the other hand are responsible for the Cubs drop in the ratings because they quit watching once they know their team is out of the race.

TornLabrum
09-11-2005, 09:51 AM
Of course the Sox TV isn't going to spike that much just because we're having a good year. Sox fans watch every game no matter what and don't just watch if the Sox are doing well, so obviously the ratings should stay consistent. Cub's fans on the other hand are responsible for the Cubs drop in the ratings because they quit watching once they know their team is out of the race.

*DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING*

We have a winner!