Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

20Safety_Hazards

Deadspin Maps NFL Fandom via Facebook.

33 posts in this topic

INVADERS TAKE NOTE

Mercer County is correct.

Screw off now and beat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out "territory" is embarrassingly small.

Not really, Philadelphia area is densely populated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Every northern team has spots in Florida lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we're not the jets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Image13.png

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Image13.png

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"??? :huh:

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. :nonono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only "to an extent"??? :huh:

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. :nonono:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites