How do Networks Know How Many People are Watching a TV Program?

I wonder why no one has complained about the insurance companies and their millions of dollars spent on commercials, but not lowering our rates. Any comments?

I'm 63 years old and I can't remember buying anything as a result of watching a television commercial. Also if a commercial is too loud, I either put the set on mute or change the channel, and if commercials last more the five minutes I fall asleep and end up not watching anything.

They can turn on and off any cable box in this high tech world. The computer system keeps track of all data coming out of the box. They can not just guess from 5000 hillbillies who participated in research and think this represents society!

So does this work with recorded programs, as the TV unit does not even need to be operational while recording programs and then the life giving commercials would simply be fast forwarded by the viewer?

I think the (sad) takeaway here is that tv networks don't care at all about what shows their viewers want to see and how popular a show really is. Rather, ratings are all about advertising and making money.

I wish they would poll the networks I won't watch because of the volume of ridiculous commercials.

I don't think the ratings are accurate representation of actual viewers. The sampling is too small. They don't take into account the many ways people are watching shows.

For example, I work and have children so I don't have time to watch TV shows when they air. I DVR some, but I don't watch them until I have time which could be weeks later. I watch a few via the web and my cell phone. I also watch some via my Sprint TV. I'm a little ticked today because one of my favorite shows, Nikita, is being canceled due to low ratings -- inaccurate ratings. The current ratings system is too antiquated.

Personally, I feel because they use such a small number of "samplings" to determine what is being watched, that this system is unfair. There are likely many shows that had a lot more viewers that were not part of that sampling that got canceled. Humans are creatures of habit for the most part. Because of this, a show could survive solely on a few highly watched (samplings) episodes.

Our household does not pay for TV anymore. We bought an antennae about three years ago. We use a Roku and pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus.

We often wish someone was watching our viewing habits so that "Good Morning America" would notice that we change the channel every time Nancy Grace comes on!

So, If a network paid off a Nielsen employee for access to the list, or a portion of the list of 5000, then contacted and offered some of these participants a few hundred or thousand bucks to tune into a show of their choosing, they could get the ratings to get the advertisers to get massive amounts of money. If I can think of this on the fly in the time it took me to read this article, I'm sure this has been at least attempted.

To the commenter who thinks Nielsen doesn't exist anymore. It definitely does. My parents (both 60+ to the commenter saying they only go to 18-50) are a Nielsen household.

Every TV has a little box attached to it (that they come and spend hours attaching to the internal workings of the TV) that you sign into every time you watch TV. After inactivity (sleeping) of about 40 minutes you have to hit the button to say you are still there. It's a giant pain in the butt and honestly, half the time, you just try to ignore it. So really it's an awful system. They also did the handwritten diary system years ago

I remember when the first generation home video games and VCRs became available the local NBC channel suddenly became extremely popular. Nobody could explain why all of these marginal programs like "Manimal" were getting such high ratings. Finally someone at Nielsen realized that many people were tuning their television sets to channel 3 so they could play their VCRs and video games, not actually watch the shows. Channel 3 just happened to be our local NBC affiliate, so the ratings results were totally bogus.

Okay, the information on this page is a little misleading. I’m not sure that Nielsen is even around anymore. Let alone the 5,000 people thing.

I did not check to see, but if they are then it’s simply either for “show” or for “old-times-sake.” Take a look at that “box” on top of or around your T.V. Even the box that they give you to put in a second room, for a second T.V. that they give you for “free” is exactly for this purpose: Each and every box installed now has its own IP address. So, when you turn on your set and watch a program they can now track you in real time!! I personally think that it’s a gross invasion of everyone’s privacy but what can you do?

I like “anon149803” idea and just download, but you can be tracked that way as well. I guess P2P is the only anonymous way to download and watch your favorite show without being tracked, traced and data based. Welcome to the 21st century where not only you are watching but everything that you do is watched. Flipped that on us didn't they?

There should be like a rating thing on all networks so people can actually rate the show themselves. It would be more accurate and people would get more shows they like aired.

This is just wrong They only use ages 18 - 49. retired people that have worked all their lives and supported the advertisers do not count in this world.

All television broadcasting is beginning to sound like a bunch of poop. Why isn't anything fair these days? I choose not to pay for something I don't want and if the shows get worse, I am disconnecting TV all together and sticking with internet music or Facebook.

True. Getting recorded data of only 5,000 people? I don't think it can accurately represent the actual numbers. There are lots of people, who just like switching between channels to see whatever interests them the most at that particular time. Especially shift workers probably won't have a fixed viewing time or show.

Notice it is never 100 percent accurate and it never will be it is only a guess, nothing more. all the data is made to reflect what they want it to reflect. Next year it will be 115 million viewers. The numbers always favor the intended purpose so Nielsen makes money and the networks make money.

It's all about capitalism. The networks aren't in the entertainment business; they are in the business of making money. Period.

I don't have cable or satellite. I have an over-the-air antenna which receives one local station (two many hills between me and the broadcast sites) so I watch the majority of my programs a day later over the Internet, which I stream from my computer to my TV via PlayStation. That works for me, and it gripes me no end that a small sampling of people is representative of the way I watch TV and some of the best shows out there suffer short air lives because of misleading ratings. Statistically, statistics are bogus!

Thanks for this information, i was searching too many days. You have really cleared my mind about this topic.

DirecTV and Dish network require a phone line or internet connection be plugged into their boxes. They get real time data on who's watching what. They do it anonymously unless you opt into full disclosure but I'm sure the companies along with major cable companies sell your info to advertisers and ratings companies. The nielsen crap is dated and is taking into consideration but is not the only way they find out who watched what. Cable companies do the same thing since they went to digital. Your cable box sends a signal back to the host and requests the channel you want to view. They know what you're watching, when and how many tv's.

It's all based on statistics. And believe it or not, it is pretty accurate. Usually between +/- 3 percent. The sample size would have to grow exponentially above 5000 to decrease the deviation by even 1 percent. In most circumstances a sample size of 5000 is considered extremely large. Most people assume they represent the majority when in most cases they do not.

Not just 5,000 people, but 5,000 people who are actually watching TV. What about the 5,000 not watching TV?

It's not a good system. Logically, a lot of people would not be willing to have their viewing habits monitored. They would represent a distinct portion of the population.

I love sci fi, as do lots of my friends, and we would be more likely to watch online and would also be less likely to let people record our viewing habits.

Right away, you lose a large portion of the population that watches sci fi, so that type of program, for example, will never receive a just assessment.

Tracking 5,000 people out of hundreds of millions seems like the resulting data wouldn't be accurate. I've always been suspect of Neilsen ratings.... But I guess they would argue that they scientifically choose those 5,000 to truly represent what millions of people actually watch....