32 replies to this topic

[20Safety_Hazards]

It's a pretty interesting read.

Jets fans claimed one county of NY.

No one is friends with a Jags fan.

[CMPunk]

Geez, Raiders fans.

[Fresh Prince]

INVADERS TAKE NOTE

Mercer County is correct.
Screw off now and beat it.

[Footballman175]

[AllPhillyFan]

I honestly feel we should divide the state of PA that way...people from western PA are weird.  Soda is not pop, and it's a hoagie, not a grinder.

[Innocence096]

im fron York county in PA and I would say that there are far more Ravens fans then Steelers. Especially among the younger generation. really surprised to see that it is the Steelers on there. out "territory" is embarrassingly small.

[ndirish5567]

Innocence096, on 31 January 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

im fron York county in PA and I would say that there are far more Ravens fans then Steelers. Especially among the younger generation. really surprised to see that it is the Steelers on there. out "territory" is embarrassingly small.

Have to second that. You go to York and it's Ravens central and has been for a long, long time. I rarely see Steelers gear out there.

Manheim area, Lancaster area is also heavy Ravens for some reason.

[IHateDemCowboys]

Innocence096, on 31 January 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

out "territory" is embarrassingly small.

Not really, Philadelphia area is densely populated.

[Machine]

We had a horrible year... Guarantee we got spots in Florida on a better year

[CMPunk]

Machine, on 31 January 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

We had a horrible year... Guarantee we got spots in Florida on a better year

Every northern team has spots in Florida lol

[Machine]

At least we're not the jets

[E v 2.0]

I think the Eagles map would be bigger if people Didnt hate our fans so much. People dislike the eagles because they REALLY hate the fans.

[Dawkins 20]

E v 2.0, on 01 February 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

I think the Eagles map would be bigger if people Didnt hate our fans so much. People dislike the eagles because they REALLY hate the fans.

I see what you did there.

[BKLYNYG]

AllPhillyFan, on 31 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

I honestly feel we should divide the state of PA that way...people from western PA are weird.  Soda is not pop, and it's a hoagie, not a grinder.

It's actually a hero, but I digress.

I wonder what the New England portion of the map looked like just before their first SB win. I remember skiing up north my entire childhood and seeing Giants logos everywhere. Even now if you go to bars in Vermont Giants banners still hang on the walls.

[MightyJNC]

Well considering that only 27.5% of Facebook users are 35 or older:



While 72% of NFL fans are 35 or older:

http://www.marketres...=1113&Itemid=48

Makes using Facebook "likes" (as an accurate indication of "NFL Fandom" ) pretty much beyond useless for any age groups except those under 35.

[20Safety_Hazards]

MightyJNC, on 01 February 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Well considering that only 27.5% of Facebook users are 35 or older:



While 72% of NFL fans are 35 or older:

http://www.marketres...=1113&Itemid=48

Makes using Facebook "likes" (as an accurate indication of "NFL Fandom" ) pretty much beyond useless for any age groups except those under 35.

I would agree to an extent. But there isn't a much better way of doing it at the moment. I think this would be a much more accurate assessment in say 10-15 years.

[CalmDC]

ndirish5567, on 31 January 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Have to second that. You go to York and it's Ravens central and has been for a long, long time. I rarely see Steelers gear out there.

Manheim area, Lancaster area is also heavy Ravens for some reason.

Come down to north Maryland some time - pretty much everyone is from/has family in central PA.

[MightyJNC]

20Safety_Hazards, on 01 February 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

I would agree to an extent. But there isn't a much better way of doing it at the moment. I think this would be a much more accurate assessment in say 10-15 years.

Only "to an extent"???  

Let's just say for argument's sake there are 50M NFL fans in the US and if 72% are 35 or older, that equals 36M fans who fall into those age groups.

Now if only 27.5% of fans in those age groups use Facebook that equals 9.9M fans. (and even using the 27.5% is being extremely charitible considering that it's highly unlikely that all of the 35+ Facebook users are also all NFL fans).

36M - 9.9M equals 26.1M fans in those age groups whose "fandom" can't be determined via Facebook.

So, there has to be any number of ways to get a more accurate representation of the >/= 35 demographic because Facebook's #s could hardly be any more worthless since they fail to identify at least 73% of said demographic's preferences.

[20Safety_Hazards]

MightyJNC, on 01 February 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Only "to an extent"???  

Let's just say for argument's sake there are 50M NFL fans in the US and if 72% are 35 or older, that equals 36M fans who fall into those age groups.

Now if only 27.5% of fans in those age groups use Facebook that equals 9.9M fans. (and even using the 27.5% is being extremely charitible considering that it's highly unlikely that all of the 35+ Facebook users are also all NFL fans).

36M - 9.9M equals 26.1M fans in those age groups whose "fandom" can't be determined via Facebook.

So, there has to be any number of ways to get a more accurate representation of the >/= 35 demographic because Facebook's #s could hardly be any more worthless since they fail to identify at least 73% of said demographic's preferences.

At the same time, when you look at statistics and polling, you generally use an even smaller sample size than the numbers available on Facebook. Think about all of those gallup polls, etc. that were conducted, or television ratings for that matter. Those are based specific targets that ignore large segments of the populations (especially TV ratings which require neilson ratings boxes which would likely not be included in certain types of homes). That's why I say, yes its not perfect, and it probably has some effect, probably even noticeable, but you are looking at sample to create a picture of the area at large.

[MightyJNC]

20Safety_Hazards, on 01 February 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

At the same time, when you look at statistics and polling, you generally use an even smaller sample size than the numbers available on Facebook. Think about all of those gallup polls, etc. that were conducted, or television ratings for that matter. Those are based specific targets that ignore large segments of the populations (especially TV ratings which require neilson ratings boxes which would likely not be included in certain types of homes). That's why I say, yes its not perfect, and it probably has some effect, probably even noticeable, but you are looking at sample to create a picture of the area at large.

Regardles of whether the sample size was 10 or 10M, when data is only available for 27% of a particular demographic group it is at best extremely flawed and would be disregarded by any credible analyst.

Look, you started this thread so I understand why you're so vehemently trying to defend it but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Facebook users fall into the <35 age groups so those are the only ones on which any valid conclusions could be drawn.

[20Safety_Hazards]

MightyJNC, on 01 February 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Regardles of whether the sample size was 10 or 10M, when data is only available for 27% of a particular demographic group it is at best extremely flawed and would be disregarded by any credible analyst.

Look, you started this thread so I understand why you're so vehemently trying to defend it but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Facebook users fall into the <35 age groups so those are the only ones on which any valid conclusions could be drawn.

I'm not defending it vehemently. I just thought it was interesting so I posted it. My main response to you was that it is the best metric available at this time. Is it perfect? Hardly. Likewise, I also said that this would be a better projection 10-15 years from now (assuming facebook or social media is still a major contributor in the digital market). Over time, that media source would be a better predictor.

But just to push back because I think this is interesting discussion (much more satisfying than most of the non-eagles football discussion).

NFL Demographics: Now keep in mind this demographics poll in itself ignores fans under 18. Which arguably skews the numbers higher for the older generations. You add in the complete spectrum the numbers change (no overwhelmingly, but enough to make the numbers look differently).
18-34 31.9%
35-49 28.9%
50+ 39.2%

Facebook Demographs
18-34 51.9%
35-49 20.25%
50+ 7.1%

So yes, you are favoring the 18-34 market to the detriment of the 50+ market, but at the same time you are not terribly far off from the 35-49 market. I mean I could turn the same argument on you. 60% of the NFL demographic is under 50 years old. 70% of facebook is made up of that demographic.

That said. I concede to you that it is flawed. Do I think it is completely worthless? No. That's why I said I agree with you too an extent.

[sseifert]

Innocence096, on 31 January 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

out "territory" is embarrassingly small.

A couple of Super Bowl wins would change the map.

Would of been interesting to see the map during 2004, eagles may have held some more of the map, damn bandwagoners

[20Safety_Hazards]

sseifert, on 01 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

A couple of Super Bowl wins would change the map.

Would of been interesting to see the map during 2004, eagles may have held some more of the map, damn bandwagoners

I think this is the even bigger indictment of the map. Bad teams will not receive "likes" though still might have bigger followings. While when teams are winning everyone wants to hop on board like they were there the whole time.

[MightyJNC]

20Safety_Hazards, on 01 February 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

I'm not defending it vehemently. I just thought it was interesting so I posted it. My main response to you was that it is the best metric available at this time. Is it perfect? Hardly. Likewise, I also said that this would be a better projection 10-15 years from now (assuming facebook or social media is still a major contributor in the digital market). Over time, that media source would be a better predictor.

But just to push back because I think this is interesting discussion (much more satisfying than most of the non-eagles football discussion).

NFL Demographics: Now keep in mind this demographics poll in itself ignores fans under 18. Which arguably skews the numbers higher for the older generations. You add in the complete spectrum the numbers change (no overwhelmingly, but enough to make the numbers look differently).
18-34 31.9%
35-49 28.9%
50+ 39.2%

Facebook Demographs
18-34 51.9%
35-49 20.25%
50+ 7.1%

So yes, you are favoring the 18-34 market to the detriment of the 50+ market, but at the same time you are not terribly far off from the 35-49 market. I mean I could turn the same argument on you. 60% of the NFL demographic is under 50 years old. 70% of facebook is made up of that demographic.

That said. I concede to you that it is flawed. Do I think it is completely worthless? No. That's why I said I agree with you too an extent.

72.5% of the facebook demographic is under 35, 95.4% under 54, but only 22.9% (of that 95.4%) i between 35 - 54, so I have no idea where you're getting that "70% of Facebook is under 50" ish from, it's actually much closer to 90+% of Facebook users are under 50, with 72.5% under 35.

That's why I'm saying their data is highly questionable when it comes to the 35+ crowd because they don't have a representative sample size for those demographics.

Whatever, I really couldn't care less what Facebook has to say about their users sports "likes", in fact considering which age groups make up the majority of their users, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that their (users) favorite sports were something like the "X Games", (with the NFL probably a distant 3rd or 4th  behind that), MLS and also possibly the NBA.

However, I do know that I wouldn't place any stock what-so-ever in Facebook data when it comes to the preferences of mature adults, nor would I suspect that any credible analytical companies or research institutions would either.

I also don't see that changing "10 - 15 years from now" because the under 35 set will always make up the vast majority of their users and as current users reach that age they'll outgrow Facebook's appeal just like they do so many other things they thought were the ish when they were younger.

[20Safety_Hazards]

MightyJNC, on 01 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

72.5% of the facebook demographic is under 35, 95.4% under 54, but only 22.9% (of that 95.4%) i between 35 - 54, so I have no idea where you're getting that "70% of Facebook is under 50" ish from, it's actually much closer to 90+% of Facebook users are under 50, with 72.5% under 35.

That's why I'm saying their data is highly questionable when it comes to the 35+ crowd because they don't have a representative sample size for those demographics.

Whatever, I really couldn't care less what Facebook has to say about their users sports "likes", in fact considering which age groups make up the majority of their users, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that their (users) favorite sports were something like the "X Games", (with the NFL probably a distant 3rd or 4th  behind that), MLS and also possibly the NBA.

However, I do know that I wouldn't place any stock what-so-ever in Facebook data when it comes to the preferences of mature adults, nor would I suspect that any credible analytical companies or research institutions would either.

I also don't see that changing "10 - 15 years from now" because the under 35 set will always make up the vast majority of their users and as current users reach that age they'll outgrow Facebook's appeal just like they do so many other things they thought were the ish when they were younger.

If this were truly the case, Facebook would not be as ridiculously wealthy as it is. Companies spend millions for the information people willing post. Facebook, Twitter, Social Media generally has been a boon for marketing in several different areanas. Sports is no different. Especially a Market like the NFL who knows that they need the next generation (the 18-35) market and below for continued success and growth.

And when I said 10-15 years later, I said it under the assumption that this outlet survived. The idea of social media has exploded over the last 10 years, from MySpace, to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn... I gotta be honest, your questioning of this market shows how out of touch you are with modern day economics and technology. I'm not saying Facebook will be around forever, far from it. But social media is something that will be in existence for quite some time and will be something that people going forward will engage in for multiple reasons beyond just "it being cool."

[MightyJNC]

20Safety_Hazards, on 02 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

If this were truly the case, Facebook would not be as ridiculously wealthy as it is. Companies spend millions for the information people willing post. Facebook, Twitter, Social Media generally has been a boon for marketing in several different areanas. Sports is no different. Especially a Market like the NFL who knows that they need the next generation (the 18-35) market and below for continued success and growth.

Which was exactly my original point, "that while the data that can be gleaned from Facebook, FOR THE UNDER 35 DEMOGRAPHIC is useful and validly representative, that is not the case for the OVER 35 DEMOGRAPHIC".   Why am I not surprised that it took you this long to grasp that?

20Safety_Hazards, on 02 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

And when I said 10-15 years later, I said it under the assumption that this outlet survived. The idea of social media has exploded over the last 10 years, from MySpace, to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn... I gotta be honest, your questioning of this market shows how out of touch you are with modern day economics and technology. I'm not saying Facebook will be around forever, far from it. But social media is something that will be in existence for quite some time and will be something that people going forward will engage in for multiple reasons beyond just "it being cool."

Again, I never questioned or suggested that the outlet wouldn't survive.  My entire point in this case was that the vast majority of their users would always fall into the under 35 demographic, but that it would never be representative of the over 35 because as current users reached that age and beyond they would outgrow Facebook's appeal.

A little reading comprehension can go a long way, you should try it sometime.

[rich36]

MightyJNC, on 02 February 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Which was exactly my original point, "that while the data that can be gleaned from Facebook, FOR THE UNDER 35 DEMOGRAPHIC is useful and validly representative, that is not the case for the OVER 35 DEMOGRAPHIC".   Why am I not surprised that it took you this long to grasp that?



Again, I never questioned or suggested that the outlet wouldn't survive.  My entire point in this case was that the vast majority of their users would always fall into the under 35 demographic, but that it would never be representative of the over 35 because as current users reached that age and beyond they would outgrow Facebook's appeal.

A little reading comprehension can go a long way, you should try it sometime.

Damn, you're a total dooosh when it comes to stuff beyond the x's and o's of the game as well...it seems you are totally incapable of even having a civilized debate/discussion with anyone on any topic...

Pathetic

[MightyJNC]

rich36, on 02 February 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Damn, you're a total dooosh when it comes to stuff beyond the x's and o's of the game as well...it seems you are totally incapable of even having a civilized debate/discussion with anyone on any topic...

Pathetic

ricky, where you been you clueless little bastid, I missed you buddy, did they bump you up to day-shift frialator?  Congrats pal.

But in the big picture, and personalities aside, don't hate just because you don't know ish about sports or anything "beyond"? Who knows, maybe someday if you ever strike out on your own and stop suckling from big momma and the tranny's teet, you'll make it.

Anywho, I'll take being an  "****e" every day of the week and twice on Sundays, especially when it's in the eyes of a blind-homer, wet behind the ears in every aspect of life, punk arse kid like you.

[Hoagie]

Actually, I think JNC makes a good point.  The data is pretty skewed if you think about it.  With that being said though, I do find the results pretty interesting.

And I would argue that social media has been around a lot longer than MySpace... I have always considered AOL to be the first of the social media generation.

[MightyJNC]

Hoagie, on 04 February 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Actually, I think JNC makes a good point.  The data is pretty skewed if you think about it. With that being said though, I do find the results pretty interesting.

And I would argue that social media has been around a lot longer than MySpace... I have always considered AOL to be the first of the social media generation.

The data is OK (from a single-point-in-time, representative standpoint) but only for Facebook's target demographic (18 - 24 year olds) but basically worthless for the 35+ group, but the long-term validity of the data (for any age group) is highly suspect because Facebook users can completely change any of their information at any time with the click of a button.

Benefits and uses of Facebook for Market Research

• Real-time results (within an hour)
  
• Highly targeted market of 18 – 24 year olds
  
• Specified demographics, as polls only target members with vendor’s
  
• Simple interface and easy-to-use
  
• Poll network of over 30 million users for around $26 USD.
  
• Opensource software for companies to develop proprietary “applications” to offer users. This gives companies a piece of the networking phenomenon.
  
• “Groups” allow firms to actively and passively recruit respondents

Misrepresentation

• The question must be asked: How reliable is the information when users can, at the click of a button, change their demographic information while research clients have little ability to screen respondents?

http://www.greenbook.org/marketing-research.cfm/social-media-the-future-of-market-research