Thursday, June 23, 2005

If At First You Don't Succeed...

Today's ratings update comes via someone who identifies him/herself as "whatever1." (Based on a number of factors, we're pretty sure "whatever" is a certain "talent" who has found himself on the sharp end of our critiques on several occasions and, thus, has an ax to grind.)

He posted this info in the Comments section yesterday and included lots of other nonsense that we've chosen to edit. But he does seem to have detailed and accurate ratings data, which we present for your perusal...

Ted, once again you're wrong on your information. I know it's your blog. But let me correct you on the ratings.

[Results reformatted for easier reading and comparison.]

5 PM
WOWT: 9 (rating)/26 (share of audience)
KETV: 8/21
KMTV: 7/23 [this doesn't look right to us, but that's what "whatever" sent]

6 PM
WOWT 10/24
KETV 8/21

10 PM
WOWT: 18/33
KETV: 12/22
KMTV: 7/13

In the 25-54 Competition...

5 PM
WOWT: 4 (rating)
KMTV: ["Whatever" writes, "Why bother?"]

6 PM

10 PM
WOWT: 13
KMTV: ["Whatever" writes, "Why bother?"]

[Editor's Note: The person sending these, while perhaps well-intentioned, rounded the decimals on these numbers, giving the impression that we were way off on our previous account of the numbers. We'll provide a complete run-down of the particulars on Friday.]

So as you can see, WOWT has a huge share of the market. Including the "key demos" at 10pm. Which everyone in the biz knows is any station's cash cow. KETV didn't win a thing. They TIED WOWT in demos at 5 & 6. [Editor's note: Doesn't tying for 1st count as a win?] One more point about those demos. KE lost a point in demos at 5 & 6 in May. WOWT gained a point at 5 & 6. Oh, and Pat Persaud's last night was ONE of the big nights as far as ratings go. The Paul McCartney giveaway ranked lower than other 10pm shows in May.

Now, about the numbers used in previous posts: We can only operate using numbers we're provided, and so far, we've had to depend on the kindness of strangers.

We have sent requests to all four stations' management asking for ratings data but have received no reply. Just as the local newspaper chooses to pretend television doesn't exist, apparently in the misguided notion that ignoring it will make it go away, so do local TV stations seem to treat this blog—seemingly hoping that ignoring it, (or, in some cases, telling employees not to read it) will make it vanish. The fact that we had over 700 readers access this site yesterday, for example, suggests otherwise.

C'est la vie.


theguesswho said...

Ted, I am not in television management, but Im wondering why in the world any of the stations would send important information to an anonymous, faceless entity such as the omanews crew. Your blog is interesting and fun at times, but if you really want credibility --identify yourself. We know the identity of the people you criticize. When Mike Kelly or Tom Shatel write a column we know who did it. When Travis does a commentary, we know who did it. Im baffled that you don't have the guts to put a real name with this site, but expect cooperation from local stations. You say you don't work in the business and never have. What do you have to lose ? Splain that to me Lucy.

Ted Brockman said...

As we've noted several times before, Omaha is a just small town with a lot of residents. Everybody knows everybody else within a degree or two of separation and identifying ourselves would be foolhardy. Remember: this is a hobby for us, not a livelihood. We wouldn't want the former to interfere with the latter.

As for credibility, that's something that we are developing by producing a consistent, interesting, accurate product over time. Who we are matters little as long as people know we're reliable.

To answer your question about why a station would release ratings info to us: because we're gonna get it anyway, and it would be in their individual interests to spin the results in their favor. What do they have to lose?

Most of their employees and a growing number outside the business are reading us anyway. Why wouldn't they want their point of view in circulation as quickly and directly as possible?

theguesswho said...

Ted, Lets get real. Part of the reason for people look at your blog is the same reason people slow down for a car wreck...morbid curiosity. Sometimes there is interesting information, other times we simply want to see who you are trashing. From my observations working in the business I know of numerous times your speculations have been so far off base as to be laughable. And sometimes the way you interpret information is more indicative of flat out bias rather than clear thinking. Management people may have their issues, but I dont blame any of them for not responding

Casual Observer said...

According to theguesswho's comments, the posts on this blog are lacking credibility and accuracy. That may or may not be true. I don't know Ted. I don't work in the industry and I view the posts as info-tainment. That is likely the case with most readers.

It should be noted, since the question was brought up about the credibility of anonymous posts, that the majority of commenters on this blog, including theguesswho use anonymous blogger accounts (including me) not connecting them with a profile or personal blog. As such, comments criticizing the credibility of Ted's posts lack credibility. That's irony.

However, since theguesswho feels anonymous comments have merit, here's some thoughts for them.

S/he might start with him/herself when it comes to integrity. Since s/he has an in with Omaha tv newsrooms, s/he might also want to educate whoever is in charge of captions under graphics and get them a dictionary for spelling purposes. Showing graphics with the corresponding story and not a story from 5 minutes ago would be helpful, too. Professional presentation is lacking from all 4 stations in this regard.

Thanks, and take these comments with the same credibility that should be extended to any "anonymous, faceless entity", yourself included.

theguesswho2 said...

Sorry..forgot my password so Im posting as guesswho2.
Casual Observer,

I work in the business. I am not giving out my name.I am honest enough to admit the reason for my anonymity and I am responding to anonymous observations by "Ted". This is not irony. If Ted was his real name and I remained anonymous in my criticism that would be irony.

Your comments have merit. Production does get sloppy. But you didn't look up names and publicly embarass individuals with your anonymous posting either.

Ted Brockman said...


Your post puzzlingly suggests that we "look up" names of people and "publicly embarrass" them. I can't recall a single instance in which we've had to look up any name. These people are ON THE AIR; their names are thrust at us relentlessly. If they don't want to be publicly embarrassed, they shouldn't do embarrassing things while the camera's on.

The implication in your post is that if we didn't write about these screwups, no one would ever notice them and/or they wouldn't really exist. You can't possibly believe that.

Ted Brockman said...

If you don't buy my "few degrees of separation" argument, consider this: I got an email today from someone in Omaha media who personally knew the 1960s Chicago weatherman shown in one of our Wednesday posts.

If we can randomly Google up a 35- or 40-year-old photo of a weatherman who worked 500 miles from here and then hear from someone within five miles of home who knew him, how long do you think it would take for local newsers to find an opportunity to make life difficult for me? Answer: not very damned long.

Sidebar Sam said...

C'mon Travis, we all know it's you hiding behind that anonymous name.

Charles said...

I understand some people's concern for anonymity. If you are in the business then you could get blackballed or fired for having opposing views than your boss. This should be protected speech but we all know it happens.

But for those not in the business, what about us. Well we dont have time, staff or the inclination to dig into a person's past but if we exposed our true names to someone in the media, how are we to know that we would not be vilified should we ever become public.

I wouldn't challenge a person to post anonymous if they didn't want to regardless of being in or out of the business.

pia said...

Ted..why do you keep removing my posts? Could it be you are a control freak! Only your opinion counts. I know this is your blog but lively discussion that challenge your thoughts should be allowed to stay!

Ted Brockman said...

Posting a lively thought would be a nice change for you, pia. If you happen to post one that isn't defamatory, I'll gladly leave it up.

You are visitor number