Superbowl Ratings not so super

[Pogo]

Why do you care what the ratings were?

Football is now political.

The Stock Market is now political.

Entertainment is now political.

Everything is now political.

We're doing this to ourselves.
.

Football may indeed be "now political" in myriad ways, but it doesn't address the question, which was about ratings.

Ratings are not political. They're commercial.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure my streaming is tallied. But it's NOT tallied in TV ratings because that's not what Nielsen does.
I told you this twice already.

The Superbowl is a licensed and trademarked NFL product and anyone who transmits it in ANY form pays a usage fee to possess it, otherwise they are in big trouble. Even broadcast network stations estimate their coverage and numbers received in the broadcast area. All those who subscribe to, use or receive that product ARE COUNTED and tabulated by market category. EVERYTHING you do on the internet is so recorded. The amount of time you spend on this site vs. somewhere else is kept track of. AS to what you "tell" others, I'd sooner believe an ISIL terrorist where the good bets are in town for a good meal.

And once AGAIN --- fourth time now ---- Nielsen ratings DO NOT COUNT what anybody does on the internet. They count television... terrestrial broadcast plus cable. That's it.

But that internet streaming is --- once AGAIN --- a major reason those Nielsen ratings do not reflect the level of interest from the public, Because any given member of the public DOESN'T NEED television to watch a sports event, or the news, or any number of entertainment shows, because they have those other options.

If we lived in a world where streaming did not exist, and watching a football game actually required a TV, then I would have found a way to place myself in front of somebody else's TV, most likely a local sports bar.

BUT WE DON'T.

Ergo Nielsen ratings do not, and can not, measure how interested the public is in a given event. It can only measure how much of the public uses that particular medium to access it. They do not, and can not, measure how much of the public uses some other medium to access it. Nor do they measure how many do so en masse, i.e. they could not measure me in that sports bar.

What People Watch, Listen To and Buy | Nielsen

Need I say more.
Do you have ANY idea what a total horse's ass you really are?

I have 35 years in broadcasting Gummo -- I don't need a link to who the **** Nielsen is. Especially after I just schooled you four times on what they do and what they don't do.

 

[my2¢]

NFL is winning big under Trump. Last week they sold their Thursday Night Football package to Fox for a per game average up by 33.3% and then Sunday's Super Bowl finished as the #10 highest viewed TV show in history.

Looks like 3 more years of remarkable success before the roof caves in when the current collective bargaining agreement between owners and players expires. I can't imagine any smooth settlement on that front and expect all hell to break loose to the point of wondering if they'll be a 2021 NFL season at all?

Super Bowl LII finishes as tenth most-watched TV show

 

[toobfreak]

Ray Lewis didn't murder anyone. He was guilty of obstruction of justice which he admitted to and paid his time. But, why let facts stand in the way of a good debate with fellow ignorant board members.

It's not a matter of ignorance as much as simply not caring enough to keep track of what Ray Lewis did or does. I simply have better things to do with my own life. But if you think you know half of what really goes on with these players and don't realize they try to keep as much as they can out of the news, then you have another thing coming.

So you take time out of your day to post on threads on subjects you admittedly know nothing about? Why even bother?

So I confused Ray Rice with Ray Lewis. Big deal. Tell me you've never made a trivial faux pas in your life. Drop dead and get a ******* life. Or maybe being an ass on a social forum IS your life. They are both criminals and thugs AFAIC is all that matters. And the NFL is a POS.

 

[toobfreak]

One of the reasons is that the dominance of New England is hurting the NFL. Everyone expected New England to win. I didn't watch until the 3rd quarter when it was clear that this was a ballgame.

Have you ever watched a Patriots game? The general idea is to wear down the opposing defense to allow Tom Brady to throw the ball for massive gains. The games are often won in the 4th quarter. What is weird in this the coach benched one of the Patriots top defenders and called some questionable plays combined with bad calls by the refs. The Eagles were good, but the Patriots were better, and unfortunately sabotaged by their own coach.

Agree. Only a fool thinks that the Eagles, hot as they were these last few games with a substitute back-up QB who was going to retire from football not long ago, walked into the Superbowl and put up 41 points against the Pats and beat them, without there being something wrong with the Pats. Belichick made the first bad move I've ever seen him make in his career and the result is that he handed Phili a victory. There was some bad blood between him and Kraft over that other QB not long ago. Now this thing with Butler. Something odd is going on in New England behind the scenes.

Well, their defensive coach already knew he was leaving and going to accept the head coaching job at Detroit. I think the Pats dynasty is over for sometime Gronk thinking of retiring, Brady probably should while he can still walk.

I've no problem with that. It doesn't get any better than the come back of last year's Superbowl and I've spent most of these past years hating the Pats as an impenetrable wall now at risk of matching the Steeler's six rings. Now if that never happens, all the better. The Pats had an astonishing run that no other team will likely equal.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm sure my streaming is tallied. But it's NOT tallied in TV ratings because that's not what Nielsen does.
I told you this twice already.

The Superbowl is a licensed and trademarked NFL product and anyone who transmits it in ANY form pays a usage fee to possess it, otherwise they are in big trouble. Even broadcast network stations estimate their coverage and numbers received in the broadcast area. All those who subscribe to, use or receive that product ARE COUNTED and tabulated by market category. EVERYTHING you do on the internet is so recorded. The amount of time you spend on this site vs. somewhere else is kept track of. AS to what you "tell" others, I'd sooner believe an ISIL terrorist where the good bets are in town for a good meal.

And once AGAIN --- fourth time now ---- Nielsen ratings DO NOT COUNT what anybody does on the internet. They count television... terrestrial broadcast plus cable. That's it.

But that internet streaming is --- once AGAIN --- a major reason those Nielsen ratings do not reflect the level of interest from the public, Because any given member of the public DOESN'T NEED television to watch a sports event, or the news, or any number of entertainment shows, because they have those other options.

If we lived in a world where streaming did not exist, and watching a football game actually required a TV, then I would have found a way to place myself in front of somebody else's TV, most likely a local sports bar.

BUT WE DON'T.

Ergo Nielsen ratings do not, and can not, measure how interested the public is in a given event. It can only measure how much of the public uses that particular medium to access it. They do not, and can not, measure how much of the public uses some other medium to access it. Nor do they measure how many do so en masse, i.e. they could not measure me in that sports bar.

What People Watch, Listen To and Buy | Nielsen

Need I say more.
Do you have ANY idea what a total horse's ass you really are?

I have 35 years in broadcasting Gummo -- I don't need a link to who the **** Nielsen is. Especially after I just schooled you four times on what they do and what they don't do.

Holding doors for people entering the building? Operating the boom mic on a news set? First thing right at the top of the page: collecting viewer ratings by STREAMING, assface! Man, you are better than a comedy sitcom.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure my streaming is tallied. But it's NOT tallied in TV ratings because that's not what Nielsen does.
I told you this twice already.

The Superbowl is a licensed and trademarked NFL product and anyone who transmits it in ANY form pays a usage fee to possess it, otherwise they are in big trouble. Even broadcast network stations estimate their coverage and numbers received in the broadcast area. All those who subscribe to, use or receive that product ARE COUNTED and tabulated by market category. EVERYTHING you do on the internet is so recorded. The amount of time you spend on this site vs. somewhere else is kept track of. AS to what you "tell" others, I'd sooner believe an ISIL terrorist where the good bets are in town for a good meal.

And once AGAIN --- fourth time now ---- Nielsen ratings DO NOT COUNT what anybody does on the internet. They count television... terrestrial broadcast plus cable. That's it.

But that internet streaming is --- once AGAIN --- a major reason those Nielsen ratings do not reflect the level of interest from the public, Because any given member of the public DOESN'T NEED television to watch a sports event, or the news, or any number of entertainment shows, because they have those other options.

If we lived in a world where streaming did not exist, and watching a football game actually required a TV, then I would have found a way to place myself in front of somebody else's TV, most likely a local sports bar.

BUT WE DON'T.

Ergo Nielsen ratings do not, and can not, measure how interested the public is in a given event. It can only measure how much of the public uses that particular medium to access it. They do not, and can not, measure how much of the public uses some other medium to access it. Nor do they measure how many do so en masse, i.e. they could not measure me in that sports bar.

What People Watch, Listen To and Buy | Nielsen

Need I say more.
Do you have ANY idea what a total horse's ass you really are?

I have 35 years in broadcasting Gummo -- I don't need a link to who the **** Nielsen is. Especially after I just schooled you four times on what they do and what they don't do.

Holding doors for people entering the building? Operating the boom mic on a news set? First thing right at the top of the page: collecting viewer ratings by STREAMING, assface! Man, you are better than a comedy sitcom.

What, that animated splash at the top crowing "Know what's next in Gluten Free"? Pfft.

Once AGAIN TV ratings do not incorporate streaming. The topic here relates to TV ratings, and tries to conflate that limited data with some butthurt wishful thinking concept of "public level of interest", which it CAN'T. And once AGAIN for an indicator the Stupor Bowl from last weekend was the most streamed one ever, understandably so since it's the growing paradigm supplanting TV, and presumably next year's will outstream this year's, the following year's will outstream next year's, and so on. That's what a paradigm shift means.

 

[RealDave]

I watched. It was a good game. My guess is people are just tired of seeing New England.

That is because you are dishonest liberal. Many people wanted to see Brady go for 6.

If you were honest if was because of the disrespect to our flag and fallen soldiers!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Nope. You didn't watch because you were duped by the military hating Trump.

 

[RealDave]

Why do you care what the ratings were?

Football is now political.

The Stock Market is now political.

Entertainment is now political.

Everything is now political.

We're doing this to ourselves.
.

Thank you Donald Trump.

He picked a fight with the NFL
He claimed Stock Martket climb as his doing.
He trashed Hollywood

Maybe the fat assed POS should spend his time trying to figure out how to make trade deals & how to govern because his Mafia infused methods ain't working.

 

[RealDave]

Why do you care what the ratings were?

Football is now political.

The Stock Market is now political.

Entertainment is now political.

Everything is now political.

We're doing this to ourselves.
.

Actually it's the media doing this to us, we are just allowing it.

The media is only reporting what your orange POS is doing.

 

[toobfreak]

What, that animated splash at the top crowing "Know what's next in Gluten Free"? Pfft.

Once AGAIN TV ratings do not incorporate streaming. The topic here relates to TV ratings, and tries to conflate that limited data with some butthurt wishful thinking concept of "public level of interest", which it CAN'T. And once AGAIN for an indicator the Stupor Bowl from last weekend was the most streamed one ever, understandably so since it's the growing paradigm supplanting TV, and presumably next year's will outstream this year's, the following year's will outstream next year's, and so on. That's what a paradigm shift means.

It's like the FIRST ONE, BUFFOON:

Now watch as you squirm as first you said Nielsen didn't count streaming, and now try to claim that Niesen rating are not TV ratings or the topic! What a horse's ass. You bullshit your way along through life through your teeth. Don't you ever get tied of lying?

 

[Fang]

I watched. It was a good game. My guess is people are just tired of seeing New England.

That is because you are dishonest liberal. Many people wanted to see Brady go for 6.

If you were honest if was because of the disrespect to our flag and fallen soldiers!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Nope. You didn't watch because you were duped by the military hating Trump.

That might be the dumbest post ever on this board. Spin can only go so far. I watched and I voted for Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you care what the ratings were?

Football is now political.

The Stock Market is now political.

Entertainment is now political.

Everything is now political.

We're doing this to ourselves.
.

Actually it's the media doing this to us, we are just allowing it.

The media is only reporting what your orange POS is doing.

Right, and they very often omitted what your black piece of shit was doing.

 

[Rocko]

They were a little over 100 million! That is horrible. With the snow and cold gripping the country and nothing else on, not to mention the excitement around Brady going for his 6th ring, ratings should have been through the roof.

Yet they were horrible. This is the first Super Bowl I didn’t watch one snap. I apparently was the only one. Football will never be the same to me and millions of others like me.

**** the NFL!

Super Bowl on NBC is lowest rated in 8 years


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Once AGAIN --- two things about "ratings", number one, they have been in steady decline for ALL sports across the board (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and even though it's not a sport, NASCAR) as well as for TV in general as millions disconnect from the traditional broadcast (as I did years ago) because we have OTHER OPTIONS. F'rinstance I watched the whole game --- which I don't normally do unless I have a team in it ---- with no TV service at all. As did who knows how many others via Hulu, YouTube, etc.

And number two, the function of ratings is to set advertising rates. That's it. Unless you're either buying or selling commercial time on that broadcast, they have no meaning. What they measure is attention, not any kind of "accord" with what they're watching. And given the multitudinous options available to everybody, that attention number really can't be measured. Only a piece of it can, and it's a diminishing share of the whole. That's why TV ratings are in multi-year declines for baseball, football, basketball, hockey, any sport you like. Because technology.

So nice try at cherrypicking, but we've done this already. Many times.

NBA TV Ratings Continue to Rise as 2018 Starts - Sports Media Watch

Nice try

*ANY* seasonal sport will snowball its interest level as its season develops versus where it started that season. That's just common sense. It's also why this board's bogus arguments about trying to tie the NFL into politics (while claiming to want exactly the opposite) ARE bogus, as they tried to cite equally bogus "lagging" attendance at September games --- the beginning of the football season at the same time baseball was reaching its climax.

But overall, big picture, yes all TV sport --- and all TV in general --- is in ratings decline. Want a link? Here ya go, from six weeks ago:

>> But the NFL isn’t the only league to take ratings hits this year. NASCAR’s audience has been getting pared down over the last decade, reaching a stunningly low level in 2017. College football also slid back a bit in 2017. MLB and NBA ratings stagnated on local RSNs this season, and the results on a national level were a mixed bag (though both the World Series and Finals shined in 2017). The NHL took a hit in half of its American markets, and also on a national level for NBC. The Premier League took a step backwards on NBC after seeing positive growth following its switch to the peacock in 2013-14. USMNT matches were down 15% as well amidst an absolutely disastrous year on the pitch. <<​

I count pro and college football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer and English football all in decline, as well as NASCAR.

From later on that same page, analyzing why this is:

>> We’re also going to learn more about viewing habits about consumers in 2018. Gone are the days where watching live on TV is the sole option for consuming sports – fans often stream games on devices and watch them at bars, two areas that Nielsen is frantically trying to measure accurately. If they’re able to do that, maybe networks can take some solace in the fact that the ratings decreases in many sports aren’t as drastic as they once assumed.

There is no one answer for *why* ratings are dropping. Every sport and every network has a different batch of reasons. But with more options to occupy fans’ times than ever before, leagues and networks cannot take their viewers for granted. These aren’t the days where viewers only have three networks to watch. If someone doesn’t watch to watch what is on for *whatever* reason, they have a near-endless amount of options, from on-demand streaming content to oodles of live networks, not to mention non-TV/movie content. <<​

There's another comparison you need for this context, and that is this, from an analysis last November::

>>

• After 7 weeks of the NFL regular season, the league's ratings are down just 5 percent from 2016. NFL games have averaged 15.1 million viewers per TV window through Week 7 in 2017, compared to 15.9 million viewers in 2016.
• However, according to data cited in this CNN Media article, ratings at the four major networks are down an average 8% in prime time. NBC is down 4%, CBS is down 6%, ABC is down 11%, and Fox's prime time viewership dropped 20% through the first month of the new TV season, according to Nielsen data. And those numbers are down despite the inclusion of live sporting events.
• In short, if you calculated the networks' ratings excluding NFL games, their ratings declines would be even more pronounced relative to NFL games.

Long story short, comparatively, NFL ratings are still stronger than other programming offered by the networks. --- Forbes
​

--- so just as I said, *ALL* TV ratings are in decline. If you've ever heard of Hulu or Netflix or YouTube or a slew of other similar services, and/or if you subscribe to a pro sports stream package like I do, then you have an idea why that is.

So with the TV sports declining in general, and with the NFL's part of that decline taking less of a hit than non-sports TV, the point of cherrypicking to rationalize a bogus point is proven.

/spikes ball, does goofy dance

Raitings are up big in the NBA. You said they were down. I proved you wrong. A lot of nfl fans switched over to basketball because of the crap these guys pulled. I know you dont want to acknowledge that, but it is what it is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you care what the ratings were?

Football is now political.

The Stock Market is now political.

Entertainment is now political.

Everything is now political.

We're doing this to ourselves.
.

Or people who realize they have a platform are willing to take a stand.

Hey, remember how the Dixie Chicks went ahead and said that Bush's War in Iraq was a really terrible idea? And how we punished them for saying it?

Well guess what, they were right. IT WAS a terrible idea.

So now people are all upset that these black folks are complaining that the police are shooting other unarmed black folks with little or no consequences, and they took a stand.

HOW DARE THEY? Just shut up and enjoy the money we are giving you and hope some cop doesn't shoot you because he thought you stole that nice car you bought with the money.

The simple solution to end police shootings is this: do everything the officer instructs you to do. That's it.

Well........it's simple for us conservatives, but brain surgery for liberals.

No, you see, liberals don't look for simple solutions. Instead of just listening to police officers, they riot and burn down towns, they protest and stop traffic, they attack police officers and destroy public and private property, they ruin sports events and entertainment, they remain ignorant of laws instead of getting on this internet and learning about our justice system.

Yes, we pay entertainers to entertain. How would you like to go to a restaurant, and instead of getting served food and beverages, the waitress stands there and tells you how terrible Obama was as a President? You didn't go to the restaurant for that, did you? You went to dine with some friends or family. Does that mean waitresses are not allowed to have a political point of view? Of course not, but express your view on your own time.

 

[BulletProof]

It doesn't show anything about 'boycotting' at all. There's no cause-and-effect established.

Even if such a thing were restricted to television --- it isn't but if it were --- a 'boycott' of a media broadcast never works. Can't be done. It's a medium where anybody can claim to have boycotted and nobody can prove it, meaning you can watch whatever you want and nobody can prove you did or didn't.

You've made two grave mistakes. 1) You disputed me, which will make you wrong 100% of the time. 2) You just can't claim you're boycotting. The industry has techniques to measure real viewership. Even if you watched yet claimed to boycott, that's just as good as boycott because the advertisers pay based on how many people are thought to be watching.

Here's a bone for you: You are right, lower viewership doesn't establish cause-and-effect, but it does suggest it.

Yes, there are some people watching because of the controversy. But, the net viewership was still down 7% from last year.

The ****** NFL fears more offending blacks and liberals than they do offending their white, conservative, or redneck viewers and thus losing viewers. Conservatives just don't put much effort into boycotting, but libtards are nazis and don't just boycott, they harass.

 

[JoeB131]

The simple solution to end police shootings is this: do everything the officer instructs you to do. That's it.

And what instructions did Officer Loehman give in the 1.3 seconds before he blew Tamir Rice away?

Here'st he way you end police shootings. You treat police shootings JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SHOOTING. If it wasn't justified, someone's ass is going to prison. And none of this protective custody shit, put him in general population.

No, you see, liberals don't look for simple solutions. Instead of just listening to police officers, they riot and burn down towns, they protest and stop traffic, they attack police officers and destroy public and private property, they ruin sports events and entertainment, they remain ignorant of laws instead of getting on this internet and learning about our justice system.

Well, since it's the only way to get white people to pay attention.

That and paying out nine figure settlements.

Yes, we pay entertainers to entertain. How would you like to go to a restaurant, and instead of getting served food and beverages, the waitress stands there and tells you how terrible Obama was as a President? You didn't go to the restaurant for that, did you? You went to dine with some friends or family. Does that mean waitresses are not allowed to have a political point of view? Of course not, but express your view on your own time.

No, but I didn't specifically go to that resturant to see that waitress. The more depressing thing is when a waitress who is working for less than minimum wage tells me how awesome Trump is, and then wonders why she doesn't get a tip.

 

[Pogo]

They were a little over 100 million! That is horrible. With the snow and cold gripping the country and nothing else on, not to mention the excitement around Brady going for his 6th ring, ratings should have been through the roof.

Yet they were horrible. This is the first Super Bowl I didn’t watch one snap. I apparently was the only one. Football will never be the same to me and millions of others like me.

**** the NFL!

Super Bowl on NBC is lowest rated in 8 years


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Once AGAIN --- two things about "ratings", number one, they have been in steady decline for ALL sports across the board (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and even though it's not a sport, NASCAR) as well as for TV in general as millions disconnect from the traditional broadcast (as I did years ago) because we have OTHER OPTIONS. F'rinstance I watched the whole game --- which I don't normally do unless I have a team in it ---- with no TV service at all. As did who knows how many others via Hulu, YouTube, etc.

And number two, the function of ratings is to set advertising rates. That's it. Unless you're either buying or selling commercial time on that broadcast, they have no meaning. What they measure is attention, not any kind of "accord" with what they're watching. And given the multitudinous options available to everybody, that attention number really can't be measured. Only a piece of it can, and it's a diminishing share of the whole. That's why TV ratings are in multi-year declines for baseball, football, basketball, hockey, any sport you like. Because technology.

So nice try at cherrypicking, but we've done this already. Many times.

NBA TV Ratings Continue to Rise as 2018 Starts - Sports Media Watch

Nice try

*ANY* seasonal sport will snowball its interest level as its season develops versus where it started that season. That's just common sense. It's also why this board's bogus arguments about trying to tie the NFL into politics (while claiming to want exactly the opposite) ARE bogus, as they tried to cite equally bogus "lagging" attendance at September games --- the beginning of the football season at the same time baseball was reaching its climax.

But overall, big picture, yes all TV sport --- and all TV in general --- is in ratings decline. Want a link? Here ya go, from six weeks ago:

>> But the NFL isn’t the only league to take ratings hits this year. NASCAR’s audience has been getting pared down over the last decade, reaching a stunningly low level in 2017. College football also slid back a bit in 2017. MLB and NBA ratings stagnated on local RSNs this season, and the results on a national level were a mixed bag (though both the World Series and Finals shined in 2017). The NHL took a hit in half of its American markets, and also on a national level for NBC. The Premier League took a step backwards on NBC after seeing positive growth following its switch to the peacock in 2013-14. USMNT matches were down 15% as well amidst an absolutely disastrous year on the pitch. <<​

I count pro and college football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer and English football all in decline, as well as NASCAR.

From later on that same page, analyzing why this is:

>> We’re also going to learn more about viewing habits about consumers in 2018. Gone are the days where watching live on TV is the sole option for consuming sports – fans often stream games on devices and watch them at bars, two areas that Nielsen is frantically trying to measure accurately. If they’re able to do that, maybe networks can take some solace in the fact that the ratings decreases in many sports aren’t as drastic as they once assumed.

There is no one answer for *why* ratings are dropping. Every sport and every network has a different batch of reasons. But with more options to occupy fans’ times than ever before, leagues and networks cannot take their viewers for granted. These aren’t the days where viewers only have three networks to watch. If someone doesn’t watch to watch what is on for *whatever* reason, they have a near-endless amount of options, from on-demand streaming content to oodles of live networks, not to mention non-TV/movie content. <<​

There's another comparison you need for this context, and that is this, from an analysis last November::

>>

• After 7 weeks of the NFL regular season, the league's ratings are down just 5 percent from 2016. NFL games have averaged 15.1 million viewers per TV window through Week 7 in 2017, compared to 15.9 million viewers in 2016.
• However, according to data cited in this CNN Media article, ratings at the four major networks are down an average 8% in prime time. NBC is down 4%, CBS is down 6%, ABC is down 11%, and Fox's prime time viewership dropped 20% through the first month of the new TV season, according to Nielsen data. And those numbers are down despite the inclusion of live sporting events.
• In short, if you calculated the networks' ratings excluding NFL games, their ratings declines would be even more pronounced relative to NFL games.

Long story short, comparatively, NFL ratings are still stronger than other programming offered by the networks. --- Forbes
​

--- so just as I said, *ALL* TV ratings are in decline. If you've ever heard of Hulu or Netflix or YouTube or a slew of other similar services, and/or if you subscribe to a pro sports stream package like I do, then you have an idea why that is.

So with the TV sports declining in general, and with the NFL's part of that decline taking less of a hit than non-sports TV, the point of cherrypicking to rationalize a bogus point is proven.

/spikes ball, does goofy dance

Raitings are up big in the NBA. You said they were down. I proved you wrong. A lot of nfl fans switched over to basketball because of the crap these guys pulled. I know you dont want to acknowledge that, but it is what it is.

Yeah I already refuted that, with numbers. You can go all you like but it doesn't wipe it out.

And you have no clue, or way to have a clue, what "a lot of nfl [sic] fans" switched over to. That's just something you're making up because you'd like it to be true, and you're only doing that because you're told to do that and you're a robot who can't be bothered to analyze why you might be told to do that, so you just --- obey.

Please.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't show anything about 'boycotting' at all. There's no cause-and-effect established.

Even if such a thing were restricted to television --- it isn't but if it were --- a 'boycott' of a media broadcast never works. Can't be done. It's a medium where anybody can claim to have boycotted and nobody can prove it, meaning you can watch whatever you want and nobody can prove you did or didn't.

You've made two grave mistakes. 1) You disputed me, which will make you wrong 100% of the time. 2) You just can't claim you're boycotting. The industry has techniques to measure real viewership. Even if you watched yet claimed to boycott, that's just as good as boycott because the advertisers pay based on how many people are thought to be watching.

You might be well advised to go learn to read. What I said was that these inane butthurt calls for a media "boycott" somewhere simply WILL NOT WORK. And that's because of the nature of media. VIEWERS WILL NOT DO THAT, period. I have 35 years working in media and direct experience with this, trust me.

And no, this:

Even if you watched yet claimed to boycott, that's just as good as boycott because the advertisers pay based on how many people are thought to be watching.

---- is complete horseshit and contradicts what you just posted before it ---- that media already has methods to measure those numbers regardless what anyone claims to have watched or not-watched. No advertiser and no TV network in the world is going to go "oh well, this guy says he didn't watch, I guess the program failed".

Here's a bone for you: You are right, lower viewership doesn't establish cause-and-effect, but it does suggest it.

Yes, there are some people watching because of the controversy. But, the net viewership was still down 7% from last year.

And the streaming was up at the same time, all-time record for that. That's what you call a transition.

As far as your 'suggestion', look up the term "wishful thinking". I've already demonstrated not only the same TV ratings decline for baseball, basketball, hockey, collegiate football, NASCAR and soccer, but I've also demonstrated that the decline in NFL (<< acronym gets all caps) viewership is actually LESS than the decline in non-sports TV. ***ALL*** of which UNsuggests your wishful thinking experiment. There's no analogy in those other sports to suggest the same thing. There **IS** however a clear pattern to ALL of them, meaning that some other factor, which is common to all of them, is at work on all of them. *THERE* is your "suggestion".

The ****** NFL fears more offending blacks and liberals than they do offending their white, conservative, or redneck viewers and thus losing viewers. Conservatives just don't put much effort into boycotting, but libtards are nazis and don't just boycott, they harass.

This absurd emotional-butthurt paranoiac rambling is the stuff of sniffing paint thinner, and summarily dismissed.

I didn't count how many 'grave mistakes' that is but --- you own 'em.