Irony: the individual in our extended family most concerned about the media, the Russians, the Chinese, Google, Facebook, et al, influencing our behavior .... a lifetime conservative .... voted for Biden in early voting. Or at least said he did. LOL. But sad. The only reason this individual would have voted for Biden: he listened to the mainstream media and the only news magazine to which he subscribes: the ultra-liberal British business magazine, The Economist.
Quick: what are the two most fascinating data points about the EQT - CNX story reported yesterday? Link here.
*******************************
Pop Quiz: Television Ratings
Quick: explain --
- for whom "ratings" are more important?
- for whom "share" is more important?
Background: there have been a lot of stories this year about the loss of viewership in the MLB (by the way, who won the World Series this year? Last time I checked in the LA Dodgers were ahead in the series and then it was over -- but I digress) .. where was I? Oh, yes, there have been a lot of stories this year about the loss of viewership in the MLB, NFL, and BLM.
"They" keep talking about "ratings" and "share." Talk about confusing. I think I finally have it figured out. The irony: just when I figured it out, the numbers are no longer relevant. Nielson (or is it Nielsen?) relies on families agreeing to have a "box" monitor their television and a need for viewers to keep a diary. Streaming is not tracked.
This is a great example of how to explain something. Using words to explain "ratings" and "share" is useless. Best way: use graphics.
Links:
I assume the folks who rely on the Nielsen ratings rationalize the data this way:
- Nielsen is the "only" thing "out there"
- actually, that's not true; I can guarantee you that Alphabet (Google) has incredibly better data)
- the Nielsen data can be extrapolated to include streaming, etc
- actually, that's not true, either, due to the way different demographics access different devices
So, back to the pop quiz:
- for whom "ratings" are more important?
- for whom "share" is more important?
Much could be written; time to move on.
*************************************
Miscellaneous
OilPrice: I don't know what's going on with Nick Cunningham. I haven't seen him over at oilprice in a long, long time. He was always good for a good laugh but it was, in the same breath, depressing to read his articles. But I haven't seen him in a long, long time. I could be wrong, but it's my impression that oilprice has a better stable of contributors. There is another good example today. See this link.
****************************
NFL
In between a lot of family activities last night, including a bit of driving, and a desire at all costs to avoid the presidential debate, I watched a bit of the "Carson Wentz Show." In a word, "bizarre." I've never seen such "bizarre" running and passing. There are only two explanations:
- either, Carson Wentz has an incredibly lousy offensive line, receivers, 3-point kickers; or,
- Carson Wentz can't shake his roots, seeing himself as a one-man team, the only player who can make plays.
This morning, a talking head on sports TV explained it perfectly. Carson Wentz is playing in the wrong sport. In the BLM, a single player can become the team when the other four supporting players implode. James LeBron, Shaq, Kobe, all proved it. Michael Jordan proved it but he was in a class by himself and was made better by incredibly gifted players around him. But Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, other franchise players in the BLM can literally take over all by themselves. The others simply fade into the background, so far into the background, one can't even remember their names (yes, there are exceptions -- but generally, at best, one other player on each team).
But in the NFL the quarterback can't do it all by himself. We're seeing it with Tom Brady this year. We certainly saw it with the Cowboys when Dak was playing. And we're certainly seeing it with Carson Wentz.
*********************************
Most Over-Rated, Over-Hyped Business?
The Dallas Cowboys.
