Forgot your password?
Once again, I fear that we are talking mainly about primetime entertainment fare and really about the broadcast TV networks plus some cable channels, not the totality of TV viewing. The combined audience of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and the CW in primetime accounts for only 10-14% of the average adult's total TV viewing consumption. Add some of the cable channels which offer origina quality primetime fare and you probably raise the figure to 20-25%. As for the rest, a great deal of it remains habitual in nature. For example, if we watch early AM TV we know where our favorite shows is as well as several direct competitors. The same goes for the early news and the late night talk/variety shows and, of course the local station daytime, early and late news editions. I would also add many of the Monday-Friday daytime network and syndicated shows----"Judge Judy", "Dr Phil", a favorite soap, "Seinfeld" reruns, etc--- and this applies as well to the early evening celebrity newsmagazine and game shows. It also is the case for sports, though here, I share the frustration of many trying to figure out which channel is carrying a favorite team today. Finally, taking basic cable, there are many thematic channels which are known to all of their fans---CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The Weather Channel, The Food Channel, History Channel,and many others, so even though basic cable can be less predictable program scheduling-wise, fans of many genres have long since figured out where their favorite and near favorite shows are to be found. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that the average adult now watches fewer broadcast channels in primetime than before, especially on a weekly basis, which would be a natural outcome of competition from SVOD/OTT, which are merely other channels for people to choose from, as well as whatever is attracted by digital venues and other venues. But I don't expect to see major changes affecting all of TV programming---especially the vast bulk of non-primetime content. Still, let's keep an open mind and see what the data says.
Paula has a very good point. Searching for channels is a mess, so that has GOT to suppress number of channels watched. IMHO, one reason for declining shares of the big nets is that it has become so darn hard to find anything. In my home, we have Comcast cable with a TiVo box, so I'm not sure who to blame, but here goes. The big 4 (or so) networks are all listed by their local call letters, which puts them at the end ("W") of the long channel list. You'd be crazy to choose to sort the channels by number since there is no discernible pattern. (Why do viewers need channel numbers at all? We don't go to websites by typing in IP addresses.) Subchannels are intermixed with the main channels. Network and subchannel names (ABC, CBS, Fox, Antenna, Me, etc.) are not shown so you better know the call and the subchannel number. SD and HD with the same content are intermixed with no easy way to suppress showing of a SD channel when an HD version is available; you have to remove them manually one by one. There are no easy flags, icons or colors for HD; instead, the call letters are mangled, e.g., WBBMDT, but not in a consistent predictable way. Some HD-only channels have no designation at all of that status , while the only way to tell if an SD channel has an HD partner is to manually hunt the channel list, because sometimes that heretofore mentioned mangling upsets the natural alpha order. Some channels are just plain poorly identified: Headline News is in the list as, I'm not kidding, as "CNHNHD". Discovery is "TDCHD-E". Removing channels from the preferred list is a pure manual task and a royal pain. The screen enabling that is itself presented in SD, with only those mangled calls. There is no way to quickly identify well-defined groups of channels you don't want, such as all foreign language channels, all sports channels, or all direct purchase channels. Periodically the lineups change, so that task has to be done again. The other day I got around to do this again; it took an hour but I'm not quite done yet. So, what's on ABC, CBS, NBC tonight? Who knows!
Jack, on a weekly basis, the number of channels the average viewer watches has dropped closer to 2 than 1. I'll make sure that the white paper lays it all out in detail. Stay tuned!
Data always hurts as much as it helped. This is stats 101 rearing its ugly head to everyone.Correlation never meant Causation. Just like any good magician we shouldn't count the shocked faces to show a captive audience. So we shouldn't count logs or clicks or imps as addributution. Our digital slaves are only locked in, via their minds and until we figure out how to IoT that.....we will never have that data as fact. Anyone who tells your otherwise is selling digital snake oil.
Very true, Maarten. It's sort of like the endless refrain about "data" being used for just about everything and, by implication, instead of judgement based on being savvy as well as the context and lessons of past experience. Give us too much "data", especially rdundent data, we stop looking at it as it doesn't make us smarter, it merely spins our wheels.
CASL is not confusing at all - if you read it. If you don't, of course it would be confusing.CASL is simply what marketers should have done with email marketing from day one:1. Ask permission - the reecipient owns their inbox.2. Reveal who you are up front.3. Provide contact details to allow the recipient to easily communicate with somone.4. Allow them to unsubscribe in every message.What's so difficult? The fact that we now have to prove consent and track all sending is a tougher standard than just "let r rip" - that can be difficult for some organizations.As a marketer I am quite embarassed that the government had to step in andf force us to treat our prospects and customers with more respect. But it seems we cannot help ourselves. Next up: how you collect, track and store personal data for commercial purposes. Keep your eye on GDPR in the EU. It makes CASL look like a very soft touch...
Ian; Thanks for sharing the insights. Regarding, single or "fewer the better" success metrics...we might differ. The relentless push for ROI as the dominant metric, while understandable, is often counterproductive in the longer run. Today's data-sphere is complex and analysts continually strive to make sense of it...or so we would hope. Do you think we also need to focus on educating C-suite execs regarding oversimplification?
I've only made it through your write up of Gigya and Openprise so far. About Gigya, you report they claim deterministic capabilities using device ID, but I note that you don't explain where they obtain the explicit consent to use device Ids. I was under the impression that they were a data processor and had no rights whatsoever to use device IDs. Then, you reported that Openprise is claiming to know the nationality of users from an email address, and that lead/data sellers are not willing to sign a DPA. Is Openprise claiming to be sitting on an email nationality database, again having promoted itself as a data processor without any consumer rights whatsoever. Forgive me Ray. I do appreciate that these companies are spending the money on your conferences and I understand the relational issues. I am not sure that these companies are going to gain the trust of the client by making the sort of bold claims that they are making, because they are begging the question about their own business practices. If you operate a data processing business, the first thing you need to do is clarify that you are a data processing business. I'm not sure anyone with a modicum of intelligence is really going to trust a processor that claims they have all these data points but fails to make it clear how they obtained the consent and permission of the subject to use the data for thesw purposes. For our part, we're actively working to execute data processing agreements with both groups of data controllers for whom we process. Feet on the ground.
Guys, before jumping to conclusions, let's see the data---if Dave will share it with us when the report is issued. While keeping an open mind, I would be surprised if a series of tabulations trending the number of channels that are viewed---including SVOD/OTT as well as digital venues like YouTube---as competition to "linear TV" ---showed a significant decline in the average adult's menu---say per week and/or month. If it's only "linear TV" and only over- the- air or cable channels that are referred to, I would expect to see fewer channels viewed per adult as alternate forms of TV viewing are competing for what was once a "linear TV " exclusive" ---or almost exclusive--- monopoly situation. I wonder how far back Nielsen has data on SVOD, ROKU, YouTube, etc. as the basis for such comparisons. But, as I said, let's see what the data tells us.
Dave, nice job. I think there is a different dynamic that has also taken place in the past twenty years. This is consumer has only so many hours a day that they can use for entertainment. The total number of entertainment sources have increases exponentially. We have many more TV channels which is a given. But before the internet there was VCR's then DVD's. Now comes the internet. We have gaming, social media, chat, texting and other sources for entertainment. Yet, the TV side has not really embraced the notation that the internet is a competitor of TV. To take this a step further, many of my members enter sweepstakes during the commerical. They consider spending the time entering a sweep for a new car, trip or whatever more valueable than watching a TV commerical. So if you want data, get it online instead?
THANK YOU for using your voice and all the influence you have to say this which needs to be broadcast as loudly, as frequently and as many branches of all media possible.
Always good and important to see some data, perhaps a small table, since going from 8 channels a week to 7 isn’t so much but if it’s now down to 4, that’s big.
Wow! This is extremely insightful.
With only 1,000 meters and those only on one connected device, I find this data to be not only unreliable but more likely a complete shot in the dark. I have a roku in my home and there is no way to tell who is accessing it, my wife, my 17 yr old son or myself. We don't all login and out when using it, we have one login and so do all my neighbors on their devices.1,000 metered homes does not extrapolate to the millions of connected homes in America. Leave to Nielson to try to tell us it does. "Men and women stream from different services, says early data." ... LoL no kidding ... Did Fuhrer read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus? Jeesh!
Is it a coincidence that the next article is about Meredith trying to buy Time, a company itching to spread untruthiness?
The density of small town Texas is underlined. It shaped him and how he thinks in a straight line even with the offensive stuff. Plus, it is a set up for possible future story lines.
Cardinal sin ? A red bird sin ? Where does it mention sins in the constitution about any living being ? Any other way to see the comment is unconstitutional. So back to the drawing board for the people who believe in free speech in as much as people do not get arrested or held in prison for their words (except that fire in the theatre thing - does lying count ?) especially for people who consider fbeast, Google et al publishers.
Ed, AMRLD now breaks out person level viewing data in addition to the household data, so its much easier to do the longitudanal analysis for dayparts, demos, etc. This is letting us all get a lot smarter in understanding how TV viewing is happening today, and how it's changing.
Douglas, I assume that you noted the Nielsen report stating that the vast majority---80%---of SVOD viewing is to rerun fare not original content. I doubt that "binge viewing", which takes place sometimes---not always---for some people is the primary factor. The average Netflix subscriber devotes only 50 minutes per day to it's content.....how many episodes does that add up to on a "binge viewing" basis.
Assuming that we are discussing entertainment shows of the type that the broadcast networks and major cable channels air in primetime---not news, sports, talk, many forms of reality or otherwise "unscripted" shows, it's important to remember that the "linear Tv networks who commission these shows and are the first to air them on their ad-supported platforms, also share in the syndication rerun profits, which are substantial. Add to that the growing retransmission fees earned and the "linear TV" business model makes far greater profirts that those gleaned from ad dollars, alone. Also, I will not be surprised to see "the squeeze" applied to the digital players who are spending those "big bucks" for original programming, as the invasion of their turf by the "linear TV" folks and movie companies intensifies.
If "Netflix" is a channel, then it's bigger than any other channel offering high-quality shows, typically one at a time, serialized daily or weekly. Maybe binge viewing is the difference. Being able to find and watch anything on any device is a sea change for legacy media. Who needs to surf for something that probably isn't there when too much good stuff really is there 24/7.