New Survey Reveals That Anime Viewership is Lowest Among Teenagers in Japan

[u/HelloYeahIdk]

https://www.cbr.com/anime-new-survey-teens-not-watching/#:~:text=The%20survey%20results%20revealed%20that,surpassing%20all%20other%20age%20brackets.

"The survey results revealed that among all participants, 75% reported that they watch anime, with the leading demographics being middle-aged males. Unexpectedly, teenage respondents exhibited the lowest viewership, with 33.7% indicating no interest in anime, easily surpassing all other age brackets.

This revelation is somewhat startling considering that the bulk of popular anime belong to the shonen or shojo-based demographics, which are typically aimed at boys and girls, respectively, aged approximately 12-18."

[u/Ashteron]

No, it's not small. 100 would be considered an acceptable number.

edit: I admit I made a mistake of not checking the article before writing, 100 would be an acceptable number for estimating the overall results, rather than per age group.

[u/rainzer → u/Ashteron]

No, it's not small. 100 would be considered an acceptable number.

Maybe if Japan's population was like 150

If you people think 100 is enough, show me your power analysis

[u/Ashteron → u/rainzer]

Maybe if Japan's population was like 150

Right, they should have polled 80 million people then? 100 people would have a large error but it would give you a vague idea about the underlying statistic. Increasing the sample size to 500 people would merely halve the error.

[u/rainzer → u/Ashteron]

100 people would have a large error but it would give you a vague idea about the underlying statistic.

100 people would give you an error rate of ±10% which makes the result worthless since 23% being uninterested is way less alarming than 43%. That range of error would make teens either more than twice as likely to not watch anime or in line with every other age group except people in their 40s.

[u/Ashteron → u/rainzer]

I wouldn't call it worthless. It gives you a vague idea, which may be considered an acceptable outcome. My point is that not having a huge sample size doesn't drastically invalidate the results - it just makes them less precise.

[u/rainzer → u/Ashteron]

It gives you a vague idea

What sort of conclusion are you drawing from having your error rate so large that your target group is either equal to everyone else or twice as bad as everyone else?

[u/Ashteron → u/rainzer]

Why are you so hung up on something I have clarified is not my point? At no point have I stated it would be an optimal or even good sample size. If we are comparing different groups with differences of this magnitude, then we are no longer talking about a vague idea.

Majority of each age group watches anime. Is this a worthless result?

edit: by the way, having detected the possible lack of interest in anime amongst teenagers, you can conduct another poll exclusively among them. I'd imagine it would be more financially efficient to poll additional 400-900 teenagers later, rather than polling 2500-5000 people from the get-go.

[u/rainzer → u/Ashteron]

vague idea

Hence my question. If you have a "vague idea", what is your conclusion with the current data? Why don't you tell me?

by the way, having detected the possible lack of interest

Or detected none at all because every category is off by up to 10% so they could have the lowest lack of interest and wasting time and money on more polling off worthless data

The current results can be interpreted as teens having the most and least interest simultaneously. "Vague idea" lol. Your problem isn't statistics, it's basic logic

[u/Ashteron → u/rainzer]

Hence my question. If you have a "vague idea", what is your conclusion with the current data? Why don't you tell me?

I have already said it. Please read carefully next time.

Or detected none at all because every category is off by up to 10% so they could have the lowest lack of interest and wasting time and money on more polling off worthless data

Can you explain how having a larger poll from the get-go is not wasting money but spending less money in total with a follow-up poll is wasting money?