Amazing: Regan beats Obama

[BackInTex]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

[TheCalvinator24]

Something doesn't add up.

[peacock2121]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

Those numbers surprise me.

The joke doesn't.

it was funny

[peacock2121]

Something doesn't add up.

Maybe it's the on-line watching that doesn't get counted?

[VAdame]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

His name is spelled "Reagan" and he was inaugurated in 1981 and 1985, not 1992.

[silverscreenselect]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

The totals do not include people who watched Obama's inauguration over the Internet (including a lot of people at work), which was, of course, not available when Reagan was inaugurated. On the other hand, the population of the US (and the number of channels available on which to watch the inauguration) has increased substantially since Reagan was inaugurated.

[TheCalvinator24]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

His name is spelled "Reagan" and he was inaugurated in 1981 and 1985, not 1992.

Wasn't worried about the spelling, but the year sure didn't make sense. If it was '92, then it was Clinton.

[peacock2121]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

His name is spelled "Reagan" and he was inaugurated in 1981 and 1985, not 1992.

Wasn't worried about the spelling, but the year sure didn't make sense. If it was '92, then it was Clinton.

You guys!

I clicked on the story and saw that BiT had just mistyped or mis-somethinged. The story is what it is. It says more people saw Reagan than Obama.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Does it count the 2-5 million people who couldn't watch the inauguration on TV because they saw it in person?

[TheCalvinator24]

His name is spelled "Reagan" and he was inaugurated in 1981 and 1985, not 1992.

Wasn't worried about the spelling, but the year sure didn't make sense. If it was '92, then it was Clinton.

You guys!

I clicked on the story and saw that BiT had just mistyped or mis-somethinged. The story is what it is. It says more people saw Reagan than Obama.

During the day, I can't follow most of the links posted here. Our internet is heavily blocked. I'm somewhat amazed that the Bored hasn't been blocked yet. My only hope with it is that there aren't enough of us to set off some sort of trigger at WebSense to have this Bored listed on a blocked category.

[TheConfessor]

Wasn't worried about the spelling, but the year sure didn't make sense. If it was '92, then it was Clinton.

If there was an inauguration in '92, someone violated the Constitution.

[TheCalvinator24]

Wasn't worried about the spelling, but the year sure didn't make sense. If it was '92, then it was Clinton.

If there was an inauguration in '92, someone violated the Constitution.

Didn't even think about that problem.

I'm gonna have to assume that the 92 in the original post should have been 81.

[andrewjackson]

Here are the Nielsen numbers for prior inaugurations:

2005 – George W. Bush – 11.8 HH / 15.5 million
2001 – George W. Bush – 20.8 HH / 29.0 million
1997 – Bill Clinton – 17.1 HH / 21.6 million
1993 – Bill Clinton – 24.5 HH / 29.7 million
1989 – George Bush – 18.1 HH / 23.3 million
1985 – Ronald Reagan – 22.3 HH / 25.1 million
1981 – Ronald Reagan – 37.4 HH / 41.8 million
1977 – Jimmy Carter – 31.5 HH / 34.1 million
1973 – Richard Nixon – 28.5 HH / 33.0 million

Nielsen says 37.8 million watched Obama's inauguration on 17 different broadcast and cable networks.

Online is harder to quantify. CNN says they had 21.3 million video streams but those could be international as well as domestic and apparently people logging in multiple times would count as multiple streams. MSNBC says 14 million video streams while Fox says its website had 5 million video streams both with the same caveats as CNN.

Akamai, a web traffic monitoring company, says the inauguration was the 5th highest event in history in web traffic ranked by visitors per minute:
1.Nov. 4, 2008 8,572,042 Barack Obama is victorious in historic presidential election
2. June 22, 2006 7,283,584 U.S. eliminated by Ghana in World Cup soccer
3. Mar. 20, 2008 7,008,325 Day One of U.S. College Basketball 2008 Playoffs Coverage
4. Mar. 16, 2006 5,489,918 Day One of U.S. College Basketball 2006 Playoffs Coverage
5. Jan. 20, 2009 5,401,250 Live coverage and streaming of Obama Inauguration

[BackInTex]

Final Update: The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1992.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/20/wi ... ings/11134


Of course, ABC still canceled Regan's inauguration because it didn't fare so well in the 18-29 demographic.

His name is spelled "Reagan" and he was inaugurated in 1981 and 1985, not 1992.

I'll accept blame for the 'Regan' typo in the header. But I copied and pasted the first line from the article. They must have had 1992 when I copied and I didn't notice. Otherwise I can't explain it.

[gotribego26]

Wasn't worried about the spelling, but the year sure didn't make sense. If it was '92, then it was Clinton.

If there was an inauguration in '92, someone violated the Constitution.

Didn't even think about that problem.

I'm gonna have to assume that the 92 in the original post should have been 81.

The 1981 Inauguration also included the drama of the Iranian Hostage release, which I assume added to the audience.

[silverscreenselect]

2. June 22, 2006 7,283,584 U.S. eliminated by Ghana in World Cup soccer

Are that that many people in the U.S. and Ghana that care about soccer? I realize the interest there is much higher, but the population (especially those with access to the Internet) is a whole lot less as well.

[BackInTex]

2. June 22, 2006 7,283,584 U.S. eliminated by Ghana in World Cup soccer

Are that that many people in the U.S. and Ghana that care about soccer? I realize the interest there is much higher, but the population (especially those with access to the Internet) is a whole lot less as well.

It was all the America haters in other countries.


Also, everytime someone closed the window (when the boss came in) and then re-linked, counted as another hit. They probably are not counting unique IP addressed.

[littlebeast13]

Do those numbers include those of us who were sleeping at the time?

lb13

[DaveSenior72]

Do those numbers include those of us who were sleeping at the time?

lb13

I was among those...I woke up aout 1230 Central time...so I missed it all

[andrewjackson]

2. June 22, 2006 7,283,584 U.S. eliminated by Ghana in World Cup soccer

Are that that many people in the U.S. and Ghana that care about soccer? I realize the interest there is much higher, but the population (especially those with access to the Internet) is a whole lot less as well.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. that care about soccer. The 2006 World Cup Final had a larger total audience (English and Spanish combined) in the U.S. than any game of the World Series or NBA finals. Nielsen says over 17 million in the U.S. watched the final between Germany and Italy but that only counts the households, not people watching in large groups which is very common. We had a couple of hundred watching at our local soccer bar.

BTW, that's about the same number as watched the final in the UK. Smaller percentage, of course, but just as many total people.

Also, the World Cup games in 2006 were in Germany and played in the evening over there but midday here. So it is a lot like the opening round of the NCAA tournament where a lot of people are at work and checking in on the game.

Plus, you would have had people checking on the game from other countries since the result affected other parts of the tournament.

[Jeemie]

A lot of people watched Reagan.

A lot of people watched Obama.

Similar situations. A country in hard times...looking towards a new president with hope.

Stop making it partisan.

PS I noticed Ford's and Carter's were higher than more recent inagurations as well. we cared more about this stuff back then, maybe?

[silverscreenselect]

2. June 22, 2006 7,283,584 U.S. eliminated by Ghana in World Cup soccer

Are that that many people in the U.S. and Ghana that care about soccer? I realize the interest there is much higher, but the population (especially those with access to the Internet) is a whole lot less as well.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. that care about soccer. The 2006 World Cup Final had a larger total audience (English and Spanish combined) in the U.S. than any game of the World Series or NBA finals. Nielsen says over 17 million in the U.S. watched the final between Germany and Italy but that only counts the households, not people watching in large groups which is very common. We had a couple of hundred watching at our local soccer bar.

It wouldn't have surprised me if the World Cup Finals had gotten a huge audience. But I can't believe that the US vs. Ghana did better than the finals, the semis, and all the other games in the entire tournament, let alone other sporting events that are very popular internationally like the Olympics.

[mrkelley23]

1. Are these the final Nielsen numbers, or the "overnights?" Don't know, just asking.

2. Anybody remember what happened to television, starting in about 1981? (Late 70s actually, but it really took off in 1981 for a lot of reasons.) That would help explain the steady decline in inauguration Nielsens overall, just as it explains viewership declines for other televised events.

[Estonut]

2. Anybody remember what happened to television, starting in about 1981? (Late 70s actually, but it really took off in 1981 for a lot of reasons.) That would help explain the steady decline in inauguration Nielsens overall, just as it explains viewership declines for other televised events.

MTV?

[andrewjackson]

Are that that many people in the U.S. and Ghana that care about soccer? I realize the interest there is much higher, but the population (especially those with access to the Internet) is a whole lot less as well.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. that care about soccer. The 2006 World Cup Final had a larger total audience (English and Spanish combined) in the U.S. than any game of the World Series or NBA finals. Nielsen says over 17 million in the U.S. watched the final between Germany and Italy but that only counts the households, not people watching in large groups which is very common. We had a couple of hundred watching at our local soccer bar.

It wouldn't have surprised me if the World Cup Finals had gotten a huge audience. But I can't believe that the US vs. Ghana did better than the finals, the semis, and all the other games in the entire tournament, let alone other sporting events that are very popular internationally like the Olympics.

I'm surprised that it is that high. The Final was on a Sunday afternoon here so that might account for less internet viewing for it. And most other big sporting events are in the evenings or on weekends.

Hmmmm. Looking at how Akamai determines this they say that they are not tracking actual web usage to a particular event, just correlating peaks in traffic to news sites with events that are going on at the same time.

The entire top 15 are working hours events. That US Open Championship was delayed onto a Monday. The Yankees game was on a Thursday in the afternoon.

Here is the rest of the top 15 events:

6. Mar. 15, 2007 5,100,367 Day One of U.S. College Basketball 2007 Playoffs Coverage
7. June 16, 2008 4,963,050 US Open Championship
8. Jan. 15, 2009 4,962,523 U.S. Airways Flight 1549 lands safely in New York's Hudson River
9. Nov. 5, 2008 4,885,406 Post Election Day 2008 coverage
10. Feb. 8, 2007 4,885,065 News breaks on the death of Anna Nicole Smith
11. June 12, 2006 4,733,201 U.S. plays Czech Republic in 1st Round of World Cup
12. Oct. 11, 2006 4,598,917 Cory Lidle's light plane crashes into New York apartment building
13. Mar. 17, 2006 4,594,098 Day Two of U.S. College Basketball
2006 Playoffs Coverage
14. Oct. 5, 2006 4,567,571 Yankees lose in American League Division Series game to Tigers
15. Mar. 16, 2007 4,369,741 Day Two of U.S. College Basketball 2007 Playoffs Coverage