Commentary

Calling Nielsen Viewing Audible? NFL Says Its Audience Is Bigger

As big as the NFL is right now, it still feels it is being short-changed.  

Last season, the dominant TV sports programmer averaged 17.5 million Nielsen-measured viewers for a regular-season game across all broadcast, cable, and streaming networks and platforms. 

But league executives say the number should be a lot higher. This comes specifically around co-viewing, resulting in undercounting of people watching at home.

For example, chief data and analytics officer of the NFL Paul Ballew told Front Office Sports that Nielsen’s co-viewing data for the Super Bowl LIX -- which averages 2.4 people in a household watching the big game -- “makes no sense.” 

advertisement

advertisement

In particular, this thinking comes with traditional full-day Super Bowl day viewing surrounded by growing efforts around Super Bowl Sunday parties.

Guessing a Super Bowl party of two or three isn’t a real party.

At the same time, Ballew commends Nielsen's efforts to glean better viewing results around its new, more in-depth and comprehensive “Big Data + Panel” measurement -- ready to start in time for the new  2025-2025 TV season: “We’re happy with the steps we’ve taken forward for 2025, but there’s more work to be done.”

Super Bowl parties have been a tradition for some time. But how much is this translated into regular-season and playoff games? Isn’t it possible to consider watching the games totally alone? TV Watch has been doing this semi-regularly.  

On the flip side, consider that Super Bowl viewing has been steadily rising to new record totals in recent years —  increasing 3% to 127.7 million viewers, according to Nielsen and Fox Corp data, for this past February’s game airing on Fox Television Network and Tubi, its streaming FAST network. 

But at the same time, Fox TV network data (looking only at that network's data) was down 8% from CBS Television Network, which had the game the year before -- to 111.2 million (versus 120.3 million on CBS).

The NFL’s assumption must be that nearly everyone must be watching the big game -- certainly not less than half of its overall potential reach: 128 million total viewers comes versus 315 million total potential U.S. TV viewers (in 125 million households).

Every TV producer since the dawn of TV would always seem to have this claim: Way more people are watching their content than the experts, networks, and third-party sources claim.

But consider that we are in a new inflection point: modern TV-streaming viewers and overall many more digital media choices including, yes, younger digital media consumers. 

One indication could be this: Are Gen Xers, millennials, and Gen Zers clamoring for more NFL content? Are they holding more Super Bowl parties than young viewers, say, two or three decades ago? (Maybe if they are Taylor Swift-Travis Kelce fans.)

Proponents would argue that young consumers watch more streaming/CTV content than linear TV. Not only that, but that on a like-to-like basis for standard prime-time TV shows -- like “NCIS,” “Chicago Fire,” and, yes, the NFL games -- all that content now streaming skews younger.

In that regard, the goal may be to account for those viewers -- or other audience groups -- in the weeks going forward.

We’ll get some early readings -- and scores -- soon. (Maybe even some Swift-Kelce wedding plans amid the game-time action).

12 comments about "Calling Nielsen Viewing Audible? NFL Says Its Audience Is Bigger".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Joshua Chasin from KnotSimpler, September 4, 2025 at 1:16 p.m.

    So here's the thing.

    The US census bureau reports that the average US household size is 2.51 persons. Not, as we've been told for years, 2 parents and 2.4 kids. So if Nielsen shows 2.4 viewers per viewing households-- or VPVH-- that means they're saying that (if HH size in Super Bowl-watching HHs is the same as in households overall) 95.6% of people in viewing households are watching the game. That seems pretty high. Not. lot of room for upside.

    Now, I know what you're thinking: Super Bowl watch parties.

    But, nuh uh. When Nielsen moved to using the PPM for out of home, they made a methodological change-- guest viewers, previously accounted for with people meter button-pushing-- are now no longer considered in-home viewing. This was necessary because otherwise, guest viewers would be double-counted-- once via the people meter, and once by the PPM (if a PPM panelist comes to your home, the PPM captures their viewing there, so you don't want to cwpture it again on the people meter.) 

    Now, the NFL may have a fair beef about out-of-home viewing. That's a different (and highly contentious these days) topic. But since the slice of viewing comprised of viewing in a home not your own has shifted in Nielsen from counting as in-home to counting as out-of-home, I don't think the VPVH beef about the Super owl is fair.

  2. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 4, 2025 at 1:32 p.m.

    Josh, aas far as I am aware, Niesen's people meter system allows visitors to be logged in during in-home set usage stuations. Typically, this has resulted to an increase of about 2% but it's certainly possible that the Super Bowl attracts far more vistor viewers per in-home set usage occasion. 

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 4, 2025 at 1:44 p.m.

    On second thought, if you are correct, Josh, that Nielsen now uses the PPMs to estimate all away-from-home viewing that  can partly explain the seemingly high VPH figures. The PPMs assume but do not measure viewing. As a result, if a set is on in a crowded bar, with lots of distractions, and the audio signal can be "heard"by the device,  the person wearing or carrying the PPM is automatically counted as a viewer--and that's for commercials as well as program counted. That's highly inflational--but, naturally, the sellers like it. In the old people meter system the panelist was, at least, required to claim that he or she was "watching" the show when it was first encountered.

  4. Joshua Chasin from KnotSimpler replied, September 4, 2025 at 2:19 p.m.

    First off, I am right:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2020/07/15/the-hurdles-nielsen-faced-with-measuring-out-of-home-television-viewing/

    Second, PPM households have a beacon that the PPM "reads" so it knows if the viewing is taking place in the panelist's own household (presence of beacon), or elsewhere (including someone else's home.) The criticism I've heard of PPM in a bar setting is that often the sound isn't on, or else can't compete with ambient noice, so the PPM panelist is watching the game but the PPM doesn't "know" it.

    When I designed the OOH measurement at VideoAmp, which was based on geolocation, we excluded it from total rating-- it was presented as a "side car" number for buyers and sellers to assess-- because I recognized that geolocation placing a viewer inproximity to a set was a differenrt definition of viewer than was traditionally the case.

  5. Joshua Chasin from KnotSimpler, September 4, 2025 at 2:23 p.m.

    And I was afraid Tony Jarvis would catch wind of it.

  6. Jack Wakshlag from Media Strategy, Research & Analytics, September 4, 2025 at 3:40 p.m.

    Always good to see two smart people say smart things about this topic. Just remember, every person watching at a party or bar or out of home is one less person watching at home. And the game is sometimes pretty long and not so exciting.  A rating is for an average minute, not the total number of viewers. And for advertisers, what matters is viewers during an ad minute -- not during actual play.

    there used to be a rumor that Nielsens low numbers got better if someone complained loudly.  I'm guessing this is still at play. Statisticians call it regression to the mean. 

  7. John Grono from GAP Research, September 4, 2025 at 10:35 p.m.

    A stunning coment of "...Nielsen’s co-viewing data for the Super Bowl LIX -- which averages 2.4 people in a household watching the big game -- “makes no sense.” 

    Fancy not knowing the 347m people in 145m homes equates to 2.39 people per home ... on average.   Reading it ... the last three words should deserve a blush!

    Jack, of course, nails that OOH viewing (e.g. SUper Bowl) reduces the In-Home viewing rating.   And as Jack also emphasies that TV ratings are duration based (watch half a show you count as half a person).

    In AU, OzTAM is reporting both the 'visitations' (i.e. watched at least 15 seconds) and the 'viewers' being the average time viewed.   [Making up some 'data' as an example ... 5 million watched at least some time of the broadcast, but the average viewing duration was 2.1 million minutes .. which is what media agencies and wise marketers need.   And don't start me on when FB was requiring only 2-seconds to  be counted].

  8. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 5, 2025 at 8:12 a.m.

    Guys, Nielsen didn't say that an average home that tuned in per minute had 2.4 viewers watching together. The viewer estimates cover any location or device that might have been used. Once any of them is used by any household member the entire home is counted as reached. But many of those 2.4 viewers per home were reached away from home or via digital devices---not one of their home's TV sets. Also, more than one set might have been tuned in per home with a different household member using each set in different rooms. The actual co-viewing rate for those who watched on a given  TV set at home, is, I assume,  considerably lower than 2.4.

  9. Joshua Chasin from KnotSimpler replied, September 5, 2025 at 9:38 a.m.

    The process of personification-- turning HH-based measurement to persons-based-- incolves 2 components: demographic assignment and co-viewing. Really the other way around; how many are watching, and what are their demographics. While there has been some interest in the phenomenon of co-viewing from the perspective of, do ads work better if you see them with others in the room, this isn't a co-viewing question (although that's what it's being called.) This is a VPVH question. If 1 person is watching in the living room and another 1.4 are watching on other sets, the VPVH is still 2.4, and it is the VPVH that is in question here.

    The NFL is complaining about viewers, not co-viewing; they are hypothesizing that the shortfall they perceive is due to Nielsen undercounting VPVH. It doesn't matter if 3 people are watching the game on 3 different sets in the HH, that's 3 VPVH in that HH. And persons out of their own home are measured by PPM, which is a person-based, not a set-based metric, and will have no bearing on VPVH. 

    The NFL's fundamental claim regarding the Super Bowl-- that VPVH of 2.4 seems low-- remains specious, because as I said, that's 96% of the HH's viewers. If they have a beef-- and I'm not saying they do or don't-- it would be in number of homes viewing, or OOH. An in-home VPVH of 2.4 is inarguably high.

    keep in mind that since I've been working in audience measurement (1980), we've always measured TV sets (with meters) and then endeavored to personify the HH-level viewing. When I started this was done with diary placemeent to calculate demographic VPVH, which were applied to the meter-baseed HH measureent. Then with people meters, the meter itself collected individual viewing data. 

    I do not believe any atempt is made to turn the OOH PPM-measured viewing into HHs.If someone in a people meter HH is watching outside the home, there is no adjustment to in-home ratings to account for that. I'm sure that the NFL simply divided the total persons in-home rating by the total HH rating, to derive the 2.4. 

  10. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 5, 2025 at 10:29 a.m.

    I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the NFL did, Josh.

    However there is nothing odd about the finding for an unusual event like this, that two or more residents in a Nielsen panel home could be "watching" per average minute--but not on the same device or at the same location. In that case the home is counted as "reached" only once--which is perfectly fair---but the program is credited with two "viewers" per that home per commercial minute.

    In the event that several people in the same household are watching TV at the same time but in different rooms using different sets, but are tuned to differern programs, it's perfectly valid to count that home as being "reached" by both shows, but each show gets credit  for only one viewer in that home. If,  however both household members are watching The Super Bowl at the same time but in different rooms on different sets, the result is one home "reached" but two viewers. Again, a perfectly valid distinction.

    It's all a matter of understanding the definitions that Nielsen is using, which, in this case, are of long standing and seem pderfectly reasonable.

  11. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, September 5, 2025 at 4:59 p.m.

    Josh, Ed,  Jack & John:  A brilliant review and assessment which hopefully Paul Ballew will accept and many will.study? You should each send the NFL an invoice!  
    Of course, we never hear from the media when "the numbers" are clearly overstated or misrepresented per "viewable impressions" aka content-rendered-counts.    
    And yes Josh, even persons-based "proximity" is neither "viewing" nor Eyes/Ears-On.  
    As you would expect I watch REAL football and not a gladiator sport that tried to deny CET.  

  12. John Grono from GAP Research, September 5, 2025 at 9:39 p.m.

    Spot on as usual Josh.   I'm a compative novice to you by being in Nielsen since 1977 (doing retail research) but only TV since 1990.

    In Australia when MOVE was created (hey, I named it! ... LOL) the major OOH companies mentioned HH data but that was very promptly shown to be invalid.  The MOVE 2.0 version is taking a long time to be in the martket.   Since MOVE 1.0 the rapid increase in OOH companies and many more ad agencies being involved.   I couldn't work closely (after the bushfire) and now am retired so I don't know why this important version is not yet at market.

Next story loading loading..