|
Today’s number: 3.3 percent
Wednesday, Oct 15, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * I asked Lewis Lazare last night about Channel 2’s ratings, and he ended up doing the legwork today to find out how many people watched the gubernatorial debate…
* 4.6 times 35,000 equals 161,000 households. Whether everybody in those households watched the debate is another question. And, in context, there are about 4.8 million households in Illinois. In other words, a mere 3.3 percent of Illinois households had the debate on the tube last night. * By contrast, 49.1 million households watched the first presidential debate of the 2012 fall campaign, or 42.6 percent of all American households. This is why I keep telling y’all that you cannot judge a gubernatorial debate like it’s a presidential debate. Few people actually watch gubernatorial debates. The vast majority get all of their info about the debates via news sources, workplace conversations or candidate TV ads.
|
- downstatedowner - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:35 pm:
So all 4.8 million households in Illinois have access to Channel 2?
- YNM - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:37 pm:
While I have no data to support this, I would guess that a good portion of those who watch gubernatorial debates are politically minded, and have already made up their minds.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:42 pm:
downstatedowner, what does that have to do with the numbers?
- walker - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:42 pm:
About half the viewers of Wheel of Fortune?
Pat Q: “Oh no, I hit Bankrupt again!”
Pat S: “Sorry, that can happen. You’re next Bruce.”
Bruce: “First, let me buy all the vowels.”
- Bogey Golfer - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:47 pm:
I understand CH. 2’s desire not to pre-empt the network shows. But there’s a bunch of us commuters who do not get home at 6. And the days of everyone huddled around the Zenith to watch anything are over. More like 161,000 people, not households.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:49 pm:
== debate notched an average 4.6 Nielsen ==
== its 6 p.m. local newscast., which averaged a 6.8 rating ==
== you cannot judge a gubernatorial debate like it’s a presidential debate ==
These numbers seem to bear that out. I would have expected the debate to at least draw more viewers than the nightly news. Especially since both appeal to audiences interested in current affairs.
So much for that.
- Anonymiss - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:52 pm:
Agree with YNM. The viewers are usually partisans, tuning in to watch their guy. The majority of undecideds or “independents” are tuning in to gather more information.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:52 pm:
And 3.1% were Capitol Fax bloggers waiting to all the goofiness from the gubernatorial candidates.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:54 pm:
oops forgot the “see” as in “waiting to see”
- Anonymoiis - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:54 pm:
Just curious, does the rating take into account those who watched online?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 3:57 pm:
No, Anonymoiis, but that would be a tiny fraction of the TV audience anyway. If even a percent or two of TV viewers had tried to watch online, the site would likely have crashed.
- Nony - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:00 pm:
What about people who streamed it or listened to it on the radio? How can we judge those #s?
- Stuff Happens - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:02 pm:
I’ll admit that I didn’t watch it. I planned to, but 6pm was too early.
- A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:03 pm:
Rich is absolutely right in his description of the rating points and how they translate to households (not viewers). It’s actually a little bit better than Channel 2 usually does, but only marginally. The analysis of this performance is more important than the performance. All of the local stations covered it. With Channels 2,5,7,(9 and Fox locals at 9pm), the analysis will add up to 16 or 17 rating points for the few minutes of coverage on each newscast. Add a few more for breakfast TV the next day across the board. The analysis mattered more than the live broadcast, which I believe is the point Mr. Miller is making.
- pundent - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:04 pm:
Confirming that very few people watch let alone care about gubernatorial debates. I suspect that this rating may be only marginally better than what CBS 2 might normally draw. And who airs a debate at 6:00 p.m. Even if people are home they’re likely not going to interrupt their dinner for this. Wheel of Fortune on the other hand is an entirely different matter.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:04 pm:
You can try to jump through all your streaming and radio hoops, but the fact is gubernatorial debates are not “must watch” events.
- Big Muddy - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:08 pm:
So, Is “low information voter” still banned in these parts?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:10 pm:
===jump through all your streaming and radio hoops===
Even add Downstate replays. I’d be floored if it got to 5 percent. 4 is more likely.
- In a warm Texas exile - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 4:24 pm:
6PM is a horrible time to run a debate, and CBS2 not wanting to preempt network programming shows that they knew this would be a low viewer affair. I am out of market and tried to stream it but could not get the stream to work. It seems to me that with it’s bad time, the vast majority of viewers would have already made up their mind.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:05 pm:
The debate was replayed on WCIA’s Springfield affiliate WCIX at 7pm. Very little advance publicity. Was handy for those of us downstate for whom the live stream shot craps.
- Jimmy - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:15 pm:
You have to wonder what campaigns will do to reach millenials who are streaming their TV and avoiding network and cable TV advertising.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:16 pm:
I didn’t watch the debate because I didn’t want to hear the overused talking points, denials, accusations, and avoidance of the details voters need. As pointed out, how many besides devout followers (and reporters) of the candidates follow these things?
- Mighty M. Mouse - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:16 pm:
===6PM is a horrible time to run a debate, and CBS2 not wanting to preempt network programming shows that they knew this would be a low viewer affair===
I believe the third and final Illinois gubernatorial debate is to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters and broadcast by ABC7 next Monday at 8.
FWIW
- Mighty M. Mouse - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:19 pm:
That’s what I heard, but I don’t see it in the TV listings…
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:23 pm:
Nobody beats the Wheel.
- admin - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 5:44 pm:
Who is Lewis Lezare?
- Archiesmom - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 6:26 pm:
Thanks for the info, Rich. I made the comment last night about most people getting their information on the debate from whatever news source or sources they use. I just had no idea how small the viewing audience would be.
I also believe viewership is low because so many people have decided which way they want to vote already. At this point, I think both sides are grabbing for the undecideds, soft and soft votes. What is that? Maybe five percent of likely voters?
- Archiesmom - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 6:28 pm:
undecideds, soft and third-party votes, that is
- Jib a - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 7:09 pm:
I like politics as much as anyone on this blog, but I didn’t watch. I’m bored of the whole thing! Someone tell me who won. And it couldn’t possibly change my vote.
- Just the Way It Is One - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 8:08 pm:
To the Post: Excellent, EXcellent Point!So maybe a couple hundred thousand folks check into it at one moment or another, and likely NOT for the enTIRE Debage. It likely makes little difference, and, say, ohhhh 3/4s (or even MORE)of those who DID tune in have pretty much already decided who they’ll be voting for–so it’s for reinforcement for them, or to learn something new but almost DEFinitely not some Game Changer to switch their support as a result.
You’re right on as to how people decide–plus their own Upbringing and Life Experiences contribute somewhat also to their inclinations as to who to vote for. And one other Category I’d add to persuading folks/voters: Conversations with FAMily Members and Friends can ALso be quite influential sometimes, too…!
- Just the Way It Is One - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 8:16 pm:
Perhaps a “Debage” is some new Political Anomaly, but, unfortunately, I, myself have never heard of it! Obviously the word misprinted mistakenly above by Yours Truly (JtWIIO) was meant to be “Debate.” OOps-having a long day. Might be due to an Aberration in the Universe like the Kansas City Royals winning the American League Pennant…! (In fact, the last time they LOST a Ballgame, I was in the Stands, over 2 1/2 Weeks ago, at the Cell on Paulie Konerko’s Farewell Day/Celebration–sheez, they’re Sizzlin’ Hot right now/very well may go all the WAY…)!!
- The Dude Abides - Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 11:58 pm:
Some of the Rauner supporters are giddy because their man won the debate. The election is in 3 weeks, most who plan on voting had already made up their minds on who they are voting for. Among those undecided, most of them didn’t even watch the debate so this debate isn’t going to tip the scales to either of the 2 candidates.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 8:48 am:
Not watching a gubernatorial debate does not mean that your vote is inferior to a vote from a citizen who watched.
All citizens are equal. All votes are equal. The criteria and personal prioritities used to select a candidate is equal. Using the term “low information voter” is needlessly discriminatory and suggests that some voters are better than others in some way. The term is intentionally insulting and often used by people who have forgotten the power and truth within democratic governments.
- Rufus - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 9:09 am:
“…. Maybe five percent of likely voters?”
And that 5% will decide the winner.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 9:59 am:
@ Vanilla, I am glad that you consider all voters and all votes equal. So do I. In most areas of the US, being a law abiding US citizen of age 18 or over qualifies you to vote. However, in some states across the country the GOP feels that isn’t enough. They insist that another qualification is needed, a picture ID. This is aimed at mostly poor people. Believe it or not there are some people, mostly older poor people, and many of them are minorities, who don’t have a picture ID and a majority of them tend to vote for Democrats. The GOP in many states don’t feel that their vote is as important as other voters as voter ID laws are nothing more than attempts at voter suppression, disguised as an effort to prevent illegal voting. It’s good to know that you condemn your own party on this.