Lies...Damn Lies And Statistics 6/27/2014 |
I bid
you welcome gentle readers, and a warm Southern Hey Y'all to our assigned
NASCAR reader, assumedly comfortably seated somewhere within the Fan and Media
Espionage Center in the Queen's City of Charlotte, North Carolina. I do hope
your stay is a pleasant one, and please be sure to pass along our message as follows.
Facing
hump day with a blank screen has become the norm these days, as Tuesday's
column is but a day old and still drawing comments when Friday's article begs
for attention. Time to turn to Jayski for inspiration and Voila! The ratings
for Sonoma are up... and confusing, as always. As the title here indicates,
numbers can be both used and abused, and most assuredly they can be bent and
twisted to supposedly support the wildest of theories, or decry that same
purpose when it suits the one quoting the numbers. That being the case, can
numbers ever be trusted? The answer gentle readers, is, "sometimes."
The
combination of numbers representing "ratings", "share",
"viewers" and "households" would leave old Albert Einstein
with only a nub of chalk and a worse hairdo than the one with which he started
his day. Does your scribe understand all of that well enough to attempt an
explanation? Not just "no", but... not in
the least. Once again however, Jay Adamczyk comes to
my rescue, with a full page dedicated to a five-year comparison chart of NASCAR ratings that includes
all races from all networks.
At the
bottom of the page, you will find explanations and answers to most of your
questions, should you feel the need to expand your education on this subject to
the next level. For our purposes today, let's concentrate on the number
"they" tell me is the most important one, the overall
rating, which indicates the percentage of households in the United States tuned
to that channel in that time period. This is found on Jay's chart as the top
number in each case. The lower number is the overnight ratings, which are
derived only from big city markets and do not reflect rural America or places
such as where I live, One Horse Village GA. The confusing part to me is that
large number, in the millions, said to indicate the actual guesstimated number
of viewing households, which in many cases differs sharply from the ratings
number. My aged brain has some problem seeing how one can be up and the other
down. As it says above... lies, damn lies and statistics... or, to put that yet
another way, "Figures can lie, and liars can figure."
So...
why do we care? The truth is, most of you probably
couldn't care less. This time, the blame for the conversation can all be laid
to the person behind this keyboard. This person quickly tired of the attitude
heard round the nation after Pocono that the ratings indicated that it's time
to "Fire the Waltrips." Really?
One would think a decision such as that might be up to those whose job it is to
make them, and those folks are all in the employ of the FOX Network. The random
opinions of NASCAR fans do not count and FOX has every right to employ whomever
they see fit, whether you or I think it's right or wrong.
Ratings
for Pocono were up slightly over those for 2013, but farther down when compared
to 2010, 2o11 and 2012. Deceiving, isn't it? Rather makes one suspect there was
an unseen reason for the exceedingly low rating in 2013. The past weekend,
Sonoma showed a decline in ratings, but an increase in viewers. Your scribe
isn't exactly sure how that can be, but those that are supposed to know these
things tell me it can be so. That brand of logic brings to mind that little
saying that every one of our Mothers used at some time or other... "Because I said so!"
When
this small-town girl looks at that page full of numbers, the ones that make the
most sense to me are the ones we're supposed to ignore, the big ones... the
millions that watched that particular program/race/game or what have you. I can
read those numbers, and they are not complicated by percentages, decimal
points, and ratios. I can readily understand that 5 million is greater than 4
million but less than 7 million.
Then of
course, we have various contributing factors such as rain delay, usually noted
if it changes the date, but not necessarily accounted for if the race ended 6
hours past schedule. Somewhere, it is noted what competition might have been
offered by other networks, but that information is not always readily
available. Sonoma, for instance, was up against at least two and maybe more
channels running World Cup Soccer non-stop. This viewer must admit that were
soccer the only thing available, she'd be found out in the yard or shopping...
but I watched every minute of the road race in wine country. Still, those
things can and do affect the ratings and who's watching what and when.
All in
all, I find little reason to put too much stock in any of the ratings. It is my
understanding that those that do the figuring have not come up yet with a
satisfactory way to reflect that pesky little DVR box, and we all know that
thing gets a whole lot of use these days. If everyone watching a race on a
delayed basis is discounted, what good are the final numbers? Perhaps it's time
to apply the KISS principle to the ratings. Ditch the computer programs and go
back to the abacus.
What it
is time for gentle readers, is our Classic Country Closeout. Math class is over
for today. Let the songs begin. This 1947 offering by Clyde Julian
"Red" Foley is simply called, "Television." Please enjoy...
And as
long as we're on the subject of old inventions...
here's one by Jerry Reed, singing a slightly newer song about a much older
invention. This one's called, "Lord Mr. Ford."
Be well
gentle readers, and remember to keep smiling. It looks so good on you!
~
PattyKay