Patrick, as you probably know, I come from a television background. Most people do NOT understand ratings and share - or understand the difference. But, I can say that it was QUITE DIFFERENT when I was head of television movies at ABC in the early 80's.
My boss had a personalized license plate that read "40 Share." Almost unheard of today but pretty common-place when there was no cable, no internet, and the only way to see a theatrical movie was when it was IN release or shown on television.
All these measurements are misunderstood by most people. #DadChat got a "World Record" in January with over 227 MILLION "Impressions" in one hour, over 267 million in the 48-hour period I usually measure. Those are impressive numbers but most people don't understand an "impression" from a "rating" or "share."
Now they say how many million viewers there were when they talk success or failure of a particular television program. I read that the recent Super Bowl was the highest-viewed television event ever. I question that in our current times when there are so many viewing options. But, regardless, it was big.
Anyway, I love numbers - I just wish they couldn't be so easily mis-used. Our government ALWAYS states numbers in ways that support a view they wish to promulgate while the other side can take the exact same number to support their viewpoints. So interesting...
@BruceSallan Yes, Bruce, and television stations and networks often misquote or overly-accentuate positive numbers for their own purposes.
I once worked in a market where one of the competing stations doubled its rating in one book. Because it saw a 100% increase in ratings, compared to the other stations in town, it immediately began touting itself as "the fastest-growing local newscast."
Which WAS true...but they neglected to mention that their rating went from a 1.0 to a 2.0! The highest rated newscast in that market at the time was about a 15 or 16 as I recall.
Fastest-growing? Well, yeah. But nowhere near fast ENOUGH! :)