The Debates, TV Ratings and Lessons for Life

by Dave Zornow
CSP Magazine, December 2000

On October 4, 2000 George Bush and Al Gore met in a presidential debate. Not since 1960 had there been a debate between two non-incumbents that had been so important to the candidates and TV viewing voters. Forty years after the most influential presidential TV debate of all time, how did television viewers respond? And now that more than eight in ten homes have cable or satellite connections, how have TV viewing behaviors changed presidential politics?

In 1960, the first Nixon-Kennedy debate received almost a 60 TV rating across three networks, meaning that six of ten Americans who owned televisions watched some part of the debate. In October 2000, ratings of the first Bush/Gore debate were almost 50 percent less when compared to 1960: the combined rating across seven broadcast and cable networks was only 32 percent.

If you wanted to, you could extend this woeful trend and use it to illustrate the decay of democracy as a whole. In the 1960 presidential election, about 63 percent of the eligible voting age population registered and turned out to vote. In 1996, only half (49%) registered and voted.

All of these statistics could lead you to believe democracy is dying, apathy is rampant, and the broadcast and cable networks aren't helping things any by showing baseball divisional playoffs and regular prime time programming instead of important political discussion. But there is often more to understanding research than reading the headlines.

Some numbers just don't add up.
The ratings trend is clear: despite greater access to electronic media from more sources, the percent of homes that tuned to the debates in an average minute dropped by almost half since the 1960 debate. But a closer examination tells a different story.

Because more households have TV's today than in 1960, the actual number of viewing homes was up by 15 percent (28.1 million to 32.4 million) despite the rating being lower (the October 2000 rating is a lower percentage of a much higher number). Also remember that TV households don't vote -- people vote. If one person watched the debate, the whole household is counted, regardless of how long they viewed or if its members are old enough or registered to vote.

Ratings are also deceptive in that they do not report the whole story. Two components make up a rating: the number of people that view a program and the length of time that they watch. If a viewer stayed with the debate long enough to make a decision but channel-surfed away, they would influence the rating less than someone who had already made up their mind but watched the whole debate.

The reported Nielsen rating doesn't tell us anything about reach. A program's reach represents the number of different homes (or people) who viewed at least one minute of a program regardless of duration. A high reach with a low debate rating would indicate that viewers tuned in to the program for a short period of time but then chose to go elsewhere for the remainder of the program. This is probably what happened in October 2000, but did not happen in 1960. Forty years ago, there were few mass media alternatives to network TV. Independent stations had yet to make their mark; original cable programming was 15-20 years away; the origins of the Internet weren't even a sparkle in Al Gore's eyes.

The ways we communicate have changed over forty years, too. In the 1960s, sixty second commercials were the norm. Consumers sat through longer and more detailed messages. Life also moved at a slower pace. If you wanted your news from a trusted source, you needed to wait until the 7pm news from one of the three networks. Today, information is available instantaneously on radio, network cable, the Web and even pagers and cell phones. As the distribution systems have changed, so have people's expectations delivery and format. And the programming has evolved, too. A low debate rating may not indicate disinterest, but a known ability to catch up with the news later when it was convenient for the consumer.

What does this have to do with Selling Spots?
Media sellers offer more than just numbers and avails - they provide the potential to reach consumer segments of all shapes and sizes. As digital cable and interactive TV promise to further reshape the TV landscape, research tools and perceptions will be challenged to keep up. The first presidential debates of the 2000 campaign were successful for each candidate was because Al and George W. reached a large block of undecided voters with their messages intact. Essentially, this is similar to the opportunity an account rep for niche networks offers to local and national advertisers: reaching groups of current and future consumers with influencing messages.

The continued fragmentation of media can be a good thing for media buyers and sellers if we look beyond the obvious numbers. Reaching the right person and the right time, in the right environment, regardless of the size of it's rating, will be the way that both successful advertising and political campaigns are waged in the next century. Good research and solid numbers will help you get there, but only an understanding of the value of your media will make certain that you maximize that opportunity.

Back to Articles page

© 2003 TNG Research. All Rights Reserved.