January 25, 2023
Streaming TV May Erode Traditional Viewing
- by Wayne Friedman , April 16, 2013
Streaming of TV shows has generally brought good news for those TV brand names. But there is a possible thorn in the side of TV show makers:
Consumers seem to be watching less traditional TV.
Consumer research company GfK says 42% of consumers "think more highly" of TV networks that make shows freely available via streaming
platforms -- up from 31% seven years ago.
Twenty-seven percent of those who stream or download video now say they “watch a greater number” of shows because of streaming options.
That is more than double the 2006 figure of 12%. In addition, 21% say they spend more time watching TV content, thanks to digital viewing options.
But the downside is that new digital
viewing could be eroding traditional TV viewing -- the viewing that TV networks sell to advertisers reaping high-priced, big revenue. GfK results also show that 33% of those surveyed say they watch
less "regular" TV. This compares to 24% who say they watch more TV.
David Tice, senior vice president of media and entertainment of GfK, stated: “Traditional ad-supported TV remains
the networks’ biggest revenue source -- so anything that impinges on that viewing is a concern. While greater time spent with TV content is certainly good news, the notion of ‘digital
nickels versus analog dollars’ clearly applies. TV networks need to begin to make the underlying value of digital viewers pay off more consistently."
The research comes from a GfK
report, TV’s Digital Connections 2013 -- the seventh year it has produced this survey.
advertisement
advertisement
7 comments about "Streaming TV May Erode Traditional Viewing".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Note to the current television industry; either get on board or get out of the way for the times they are a changing...
I saw the article title and immediately clicked on the article hoping I would learn something. Instead I got an argument based on data compared to data that's 7 years old! I've also heard whispers, that consumer interest in watching video on demand is up a 1,000% vs. 1996. C'mon Mediapost!
Dumb, dumb,ole me. We don't know any better so we sell advertisers on reaching as many potential viewers as possible whether on cable or the Internet.
To an old long-time newspaper type, both paid and FREE circulation, I long ago discovered if the advertiser sees results they quit being too concerned about how many can see their ad and more so with how many that do respond in the way they want.
Do true CS, so true. But down to basics, as in greed - when those $200 cable bills are more like $100 cable bills, the shift won't be so shifty as the over the top paid executives (and derivatives) and actors. (Note: not all actors are in the top rung and not all support people either.) One thing is paying for something, another thing is being raked over the coals and out of affordability.
The headline to this sounds like something might have said ten years ago, except then it was digital may erode print. Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious. But good point above by Paula Lynn about how a reduction in cable fees might slow the trend.
The main reason many viewers are switching to free streaming video and shows is that the cable companies are not showing original programming people want to watch. Instead, we are treated to endless marathons of old shows, repeated reruns of movies we have all seen at least twice, and other mindless and bland network shows we don't want. And we have to pay for it. But the cost of cable does not justify staying. When the networks responsible for those channels learn to innovate, most of us will return. Cable companies need to make money, but if they keep driving away networks with onerous fees, they will also drive away cable customers.
And yes, its still true, you get what you pay for, you want change, stop paying for it...