Arum: Showtime will leave boxing within the next year

[yammy25]

Again, if you are talking about in whole, then sure. However, the key is take have a large enough sample to confident in your results. So I need to hear his exact quote. But if he said we have found out 30% of our subscribers are purely through boxing and another 50% like it, the statement is fine. Could it be a bit more accurate if he said of our surveys that we have sent out from "x" amount of subscribers, this is what we found? Yes, but that simply doesn't happen for the most part.

So if anyone has the quote or video, I'd love to take a look at it.

It should do... here in the UK if we have an advert on TV for a product and it says "80% of men found this made them feel more awake in the morning"

THEY MUST show the sampling number on the screen , and alot of the time the samples are miniscule in comparison to what would equate to a possible consumer base. I imagine they must have something similar in the US right?

If that's the case, and espinoza was made to come out and say.. well i got those numbers from the 10% of people who actually came back with the questionnaire answered, then i call bull**** on his percentages, because there are way too many variables to take such a small sample size, and attribute that to gross.

[KTFOKING]

It should do... here in the UK if we have an advert on TV for a product and it says "80% of men found this made them feel more awake in the morning"

THEY MUST show the sampling number on the screen , and alot of the time the samples are miniscule in comparison to what would equate to a possible consumer base. I imagine they must have something similar in the US right?

If that's the case, and espinoza was made to come out and say.. well i got those numbers from the 10% of people who actually came back with the questionnaire answered, then i call bull**** on his percentages, because there are way too many variables to take such a small sample size, and attribute that to gross.

Check my next post to see the context of that quote in the Espinoza article. It wasn't even a direct quote from him, but something Iole wrote on a SHO centered article.

[IMDAZED]

what makes you think that they receive a 100% feedback rate on those questionnaires.

What makes you think that taking a percentage from a sample percentage and attributing that to a gross number such as "all new subs" then makes something fact?

What was the sample size? where were they located?

FACTS, because currently they cannot be disproved

There is no way of knowing that more than 50% of showtime subs DO NOT think boxing is important.
There is no way of knowing that more than 70% of showtime subs DID NOT sign up specifically for boxing.

Espinoza never cited samples in the statements highlighted in this thread, he stated numbers as percentages attributed to ALL new subs. That isnt correct, and is not sampling.

You’re right. A premium network can’t possibly know what their subscribers are tuning into without a 100% response rate.

You’re a f*****g idiot.

[yammy25]

You’re right. A premium network can’t possibly know what their subscribers are tuning into without a 100% response rate.

You’re a f*****g idiot.

so from people watching boxing for anywhere inbetween 10 minutes to a full show... with the ever varying numbers that fluctuate within the time slot of a card, you can extrapolate from that exactly how many of those people signed up specifically to watch that card or sport and how many of them thought it was important to the running of your network can you?

Are showtime employees now psychic? kl.. nice one mate.

I look forward to hearing their head of entertainment releasing figures about how many shameless and billions viewers signed up purely to watch that and how many thought it was important .

you utter tit

[KTFOKING]

so from people watching boxing for anywhere inbetween 10 minutes to a full show... with the ever varying numbers that fluctuate within the time slot of a card, you can extrapolate from that exactly how many of those people signed up specifically to watch that card or sport and how many of them thought it was important to the running of your network can you?

Are showtime employees now psychic? kl.. nice one mate.

I look forward to hearing their head of entertainment releasing figures about how many shameless and billions viewers signed up purely to watch that and how many thought it was important .

you utter tit

I'm a bit confused. What exactly would one particular card have to do with the data SHO has compiled?

Showtime’s data shows differently.

A 2018 tracking study it commissioned showed that 29 percent of respondents said boxing was “very important” to continue subscribing to premium cable and 54 percent considered it “important” to “very important.” In addition, 90 percent perceived Showtime boxing favorably.

And the key word here is "very important" or "favorable." Never once in the article nor any interview did Espinoza speak in absolute terms by saying 30% of our subscribers subscribed just because of boxing. Just that boxing was a big factor of them subscribing to SHO.

[IMDAZED]

so from people watching boxing for anywhere inbetween 10 minutes to a full show... with the ever varying numbers that fluctuate within the time slot of a card, you can extrapolate from that exactly how many of those people signed up specifically to watch that card or sport and how many of them thought it was important to the running of your network can you?

Are showtime employees now psychic? kl.. nice one mate.

I look forward to hearing their head of entertainment releasing figures about how many shameless and billions viewers signed up purely to watch that and how many thought it was important .

you utter tit

No, you're right. There aren't countless granular metrics used to determine what people are viewing and how important it is to them. This multi-billion dollar industry is based on guesswork. God knows how the data is aggregated.

I can think of at least five ways off the top of my head that are used to see where my interest lies. I just switched cable providers yesterday and was asked why, why I wanted specific channels, which sports networks I wanted, etc. And that's just one way. There are so many.

But you want to focus on a questionnaire because that's how feeble your mind is. I never cease to be amazed by the worthless pieces of s*** online who find themselves in the unique position of thinking they know everything. Congrats, you're part of a very special group.

[yammy25]

I'm a bit confused. What exactly would one particular card have to do with the data SHO has compiled?

I also mentioned sport, and used that to reply simply to dazed sarcastically stating that showtimes monitoring of viewed programming translated to the percentages spoken of, which they dont.

And the key word here is "very important" or "favorable." Never once in the article nor any interview did Espinoza speak in absolute terms by saying 30% of our subscribers subscribed just because of boxing. Just that boxing was a big factor of them subscribing to SHO.

Then Dazed misquoted , which is what i picked up on and what is being argued. This what dazed posted..

According to Espinoza, half of their new subscribers like boxing and 30% signed up for specifically for that reason.


If that didnt happen, then im correct in stating theres no way of them knowing it.

[ΣNΣMY]

what empirical data is there to show this? showtime didnt send surveys out at the time of or after subscription, and if they did.. no company in the world gets more than a 15/20% answer submission rate.

Theres simply no way to back up those figures when used in that sentence. How can you tell that half of your new subs like boxing if you didnt get a 100% answer rate to the very question you never asked? with 50 % of that 100% saying having to say yes.

What method and what data is there , used by showtime to show that 30% signed up specifically for boxing?

absolute rubbish

Probably subs from free fight weekends. The main reason I ever had HBO and Showtime was for boxing.

[yammy25]

No, you're right. There aren't countless granular metrics used to determine what people are viewing and how important it is to them. This multi-billion dollar industry is based on guesswork. God knows how the data is aggregated.

I can think of at least five ways off the top of my head that are used to see where my interest lies. I just switched cable providers yesterday and was asked why, why I wanted specific channels, which sports networks I wanted, etc. And that's just one way. There are so many.

But you want to focus on a questionnaire because that's how feeble your mind is. I never cease to be amazed by the worthless pieces of s*** online who find themselves in the unique position of thinking they know everything. Congrats, you're part of a very special group.

Well considering my post above shows your direct misquote of espinoza, and it only strengthens my position in this debate about them having no way of knowing the INCORRECT data you stated he quoted, i would say this piece of **** just proved he knew more than you.

my original argument included there being no way of them knowing that 30% signed up specifically for boxing. You quoted him as saying just that... and he never did, because he cant, because there's no way of him knowing that.. because it simply, isnt true...

now **** off you melt

[Real King Kong]

I hope not...all we'll be left with on tv is cheap feeling broadcasts full of commercials. lame.