Overstating The O'Reilly Factor's viewership nearly threefold, O'Reilly claimed to have "6 million people watching me every night"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly dramatically overstated the amount of nightly viewers of his television program, saying, "I already got the 6 million people watching me every night." In fact, according to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor averaged 2,274,000 viewers a night in the first quarter of 2006.
During the April 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly dramatically overstated the amount of nightly viewers of his television program, saying, "I already got the 6 million people watching me every night." In fact, according to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor averaged 2,274,000 viewers a night in the first quarter of 2006.
The Nielsen television ratings monitored "all regularly scheduled programs" airing from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, which included the Factor, which airs at 8 p.m. While the show's repeat broadcast -- which airs at 11 p.m. ET -- was not included, it would need to have nearly twice as many viewers as the initial, primetime broadcast for O'Reilly to reach the 6 million viewers he claimed watch his program each night. Additionally, the number of Factor viewers in the key marketing demographic -- 25 to 54 years old -- was down 24 percent from the first quarter of 2005, averaging about 450,000 viewers.
From the April 27 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: It doesn't matter what my percentage of gain is at The Factor in the world of cable news. I am so far ahead of everyone else, if I grow 1 percent or lose 1 percent, it doesn't matter. I already got the 6 million people watching me every night. If one of my competitors adds 200,000 viewers, they can run around screaming, "Oh, look at our percentage. Look how high we're up." And it's nothing, it means nothing, because they have nothing.
O'Reilly talks about his ratings like we're supposed to care. Even his most devoted viewers don't have a stake in how high O'Reilly's ratings are, so why does he fill so much airtime boasting about it? Oh, I forgot, he's an egomaniac who's only looking out for himself.
I really do wonder when this trend started, though. I can remember reading early issues of Premiere Magazine and wondering why they were reporting movie grosses in a mainstream film magazine. Audiences don't care; only studio execs and filmmakers do. And now only a decade or so later it isn't uncommon to hear general moviegoers discussing opening day grosses, as if it's somehow affecting them financially. It seems like this same phenomenon is happening now with television ratings.
O'Reilly's ratings should only matter to O'Reilly, his producers and Fox, but he talks about it like it's news that should matter to everyone.
He may actually believe it...making him a highly functioning crazy person. Or (more likely)... he's inflating his ratings b/c he knows his rowboat is sinking. Either way, he's making himself more impotent by the day.
Drinking single and seeing double?
Sheer Insanity is probably next, as his numbers go south...
When I drink, I see double. I wonder what s@@t he takes, it must be good!
Perhaps he's on to something. Since in the last two elections, conservatives effectively got extra votes, maybe he's referring to the electoral muscle of his audience. Thanks to Diebold machines, one cons count as two.
You caught me off guard with that one and I am still laughing!
probably actually believes that number. First sign of a mental condition ?
Are yet another leftist tool of the loony librul media and their site is nothing more than a homebase for the smear merchants of the left.
..I imagine the majority of his viewers probably believe it!
1. Yes, on the west coast, his show is aired at 5pm (the 8pm eastern) and again at 8 pm. There are also late-night reruns (at least there is on the west coast). In addition, however, the Factor is aired on Fox News around the globe. What about those people? To be fair, O'Reilly did not say "in the U.S."; he said "in the world of cable news."
I think it's perceivable that the Factor gets 6 million per night, counting the U.S. and around the world. Like CNN, FNC is a global channel.
2. MM: "Additionally, the number of Factor viewers in the key marketing demographic -- 25 to 54 years old -- was down 24 percent..."
And the point of including that was ...? It just seemed like a cheap shot. It's like if I just happened to mention that O'Reilly pounded Olbermann in all viewers at 8pm the other night by a margin of over 7 to 1: The Scoreboard: Thursday, April 27, 2006, Total viewers, 8pm. Kinda off topic, isn't it?
3. Is this the point when everyone responds and gangs up on me.? OK. Go ahead.
..that there are atleast 4 million people living outside of the US that are stupid enough to watch Bill?
Folks, it's worse than we thought.
I think it's perceivable [conceivable] that the Factor gets 6 million per night, counting the U.S. and around the world. Like CNN, FNC is a global channel.
This seems very, very unlikely. Bill targets himself to conservatives in the US, so it seems unlikely that foreign viewers would amount to double those of domestic viewers. That would be like having a town meeting about say a zoning dispute and finding out that 2 times as many out of state viewers watched the dispute on cable TV as viewers in state.
Do you have any proof that 4 million viewers around the globe tune into O'Reilley?
funnymanpants: "Do you have any proof that 4 million viewers around the globe tune into O'Reilley (sic)?
Well, it is MM making the claim that O'Reilly is false. Where are MM's stats that 6 million people around the world do not view the Factor on a nightly basis? MM didn't provide any, and they are the ones making the claim! I'm simply forwarding the possibility that O'Reilly could be right ("it's perceivable/conceivable") if you take all possible audiences into consideration.
shoes89, that's a very interesting debate tactic you have going there.
A: 6 million viewers! B: Evidence shows it's 2 million. A: It could be 2 million in the US plus 4 million outside the US B: Any evidence for that? A: Do you have any evidence it's NOT true?
Note that the shoes89 debate technique could be used to give "credence" to about any argument.
A: I am king of the world! B: You live in your mom's basement. A: I live in Mommy's basement AND I could be king of the world!!! B: Any evidence for that? A: Do you have any evidence I'm NOT king of the world?!?!???
--"Is this the point when everyone responds and gangs up on me.? OK. Go ahead."---
You don't read or reply to responses anyway, so what does it matter?
"You don't read or reply to responses anyway ...
Sure I do! See? :)
--"Sure I do! See? :)"--
Good. Now where is your solid, hard proof of O'Reilly's additional four million viewers which you claim is "perceivable"?
Saying something is "perceivable" is not the same as saying you have solid proof. Got it?
Again - the burden is on MM because they are the ones making the claim.
If all Factor airings/reruns in the U.S. amount to about 4 million (which I think is a fair estimate), is it really inconceivable that another 2 million are watching in Canada, Europe, and around the world? Personally, I think it's quite possible, and that's all I'm saying.
Cheers.
---"Again - the burden is on MM because they are the ones making the claim."---
Translation: you have no proof, no evidence. You have nothing.
The claim is O'Reilly's to prove. The burden of proof is on O'Reilly, and he has no proof and neither do you. O'Reilly (or you) simply saying it's so (what's called 'pulling it out of thin air') ain't good enough. Got it?
Media Matters showed Neilsen numbers. You and O'Reilly = nothing.
Your arguments and logic haven't improved any since when you were "infoguy" or "bannedagain".
I'm afraid you keep missing the point. MM showed Nielsen numbers for only one airing in one country. MM did not give any numbers at all for the global audience.
It is MM, not me, that is not supporting their claim. Got it?
--"It is MM, not me, that is not supporting their claim. Got it?"--
Sure, I got it. It's pretty obvious now that you can't support your lame claim or theory or whatever it is with any facts.
The claim was O'falfels. MM gave contradictory evidence and SHOWED that O'falfel did NOT back up his claim nor did the available evidence support it. THAT is all that is necessary to debunk an assertion it need not be PROVEN wrong, showing it doesnt have evidenciary support is enough since the burden of proof is on he that makes the ORIGINAL CLAIM that being the loofa guy.
SHOES89: "2. MM: "Additionally, the number of Factor viewers in the key marketing demographic -- 25 to 54 years old -- was down 24 percent..."
And the point of including that was ...? "
The point is that this is the demographic that the advertisers want to target. They are the ones with jobs who have money to spend. These are the people they want to reach with their commercials. When advertisers start to see this demographic slide in the ratings, they'll take their marketing dollars elsewhere.
if you count all the voices in his viewers' heads.
Since his audience has always skewed to the elderly, he's probably including those who have died since he's been on the air.
When David Letterman told this guy, right to his face, that he was 60% crap, he was underestimating the guy by only a few percenatge points (if the guy falsely tripled his viewership, that makes that particular claim 67% crap, if I'm doing the math right).
About these wild claims of viewership: This is called "self-promotion", and it's quite high on the list of management concepts at Fox Broadcasting Company; in broadcasting, the greater claims to viewership are greater claims to power, with sponsors and viewers and whoever else believes such claims.
But Fox Broadcasting Company has about as much credibility in this matter as they do in all others; and they don't care what you think about it.
When Public Relations firms such as Fox (their prime client being the RNC, but they're available to whomever pays), when they go to spinning for their clients, they don't expect to convince everyone; no more than does a batter expect a hit every time to the plate. And just as a hitter does well to get a hit once in every three at-bats, Fox is really aiming at just one in three people.
They care nothing for what liberals, progressives, Democrats, or media critics and watchdogs (such as MMFA) think; the RNC doesn't target them, so neither does Fox.
Their target audience is their base, whom I'm too short of words to describe, but long enough experienced to recognize, quickly, from the things they say...
And even those ones, the target audience of Fox (of the RNC), even they are onto the truth of the matter; of who Fox shills for (the RNC)...
Even they know that this guy is at least 60% crap.
(When Letterman said that to the guy's face, right there on CBS, right there in front of all of David's many, many millions of viewers, it stung that guy awful; you see, that guy has been hurt by his publicly berating a fallen soldier's mom for her anti-war activism, and for publicly inviting terrorists to kill San Franciscans, and for many other things; he rode a little wave of success and credibility for a short while, but his big and lieing mouth have undone him; not with all, but with most; his Legions of critics grow fast, with each ignorant thing he says; 60% crap grows to 67%, and may be closer to 100% than you know.)
I think this guy's on borrowed time; I think he's short.
I think when his time's done, he's going to need some of those pain pills that are so popular with that other hack for the RNC.
that's called "ratings penile compensation".
As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If O'Reilly is going to make an outrageous claim about his audience, the burden of proof is on him to back it up. MMFA cited figures from the standard source of info about TV audiences - O'Reilly should cite his source to refute MMFA.
Plato
FNC "Sources" such as, "Sources Contend" or "Many Experts Say" or "Statistics Show" or "Recent Polls Indicate" or "Scientists State" or ...........................etc. They work well now for FNC viewers, "all 6 million" of them.
"According to the only people I trust for facts, the people at Fox News, I'm the most popular person in the world. Also, according to my mom, I'm almost the most handsome."
I think O'Really was confusing the number of voices in HIS head with his viewership total . . .
Peabody award-winning Bill O'Reilly... oh, that was manure too. Anyway, O'Reilly's obviously trying to blow smoke to excuse why his show's ratings are down. The numbers are at [link to tinyurl.com] While he's down, everyone else in the 8 PM prime-time slot are up. Most by double-digits with Nancy Grace leading the pack with a whopping 74% increase.
O'Reilly's an egomaniac and doesn't take such slights well.
O'Reilly's claim that he has 6,000,000 viewers a night is a "Faith Based" claim. Are we now going to wage a war on Faith?
It could also be that Bill has quite a few more imaginary viewers than most other talking heads.