Neilson Ratings: 6 years on, the joke isn't funny anymore

[V]

I post this in reaction to the cancellation of Pushing Daises.

I remember us, back in 2002-2003ish, in this very forum, talking about how "new media" was hurting Enterprise's Nielson Ratings, and it was actually one of those most "TiVo'd" shows out there, or people taped it, and "the way people watch TV is changing"

This is back when TiVo as a brand new thing.

DVR recorders are now as common as VCRs, and simply buying the DVD box set and marathoning it is also an even more viable option than it used to be.

Yet the networks still treat "New Media" as well...."new"

But it's been over SIX FRAKKING YEARS since we were upset that Enterprise got better ratings than Nielson gave it credit for.

At first, a joke is funny.

But after six years, it stops being funny.

This isn't funny anymore; does hollywood truly move at such a GLACIAL pace, that 6-7 years isn't enough to realize that the Nielson ratings system simply doesn't work anymore?

So Fuller from Pushing Daises has been complaining that all of the smart people willing to sit through a long story arc just TiVo it or buy the DVD's, so the networks want shows that are basically fighting over the low-brow and no-brow morons who are just flicking channels; making "Bottle episodes" and killing long storyarc-based shows.

And I just realized....it has been YEARS since this problem started, and they still haven't adapted to it? That the "way people watch TV is changing"?

I mean "Lost" was the first one to really bring this problem to the notice of the mainstream media; after the great first season, the ratings plummeted, and this was because it was so successful everyone made sure to record it.

But I mean really, just sit back and think...think of how much time has passed....5 to 6 years have passed....think of just how much has gone on since then, and yet the networks are still just not getting it.


The only channel that really handles this WELL is Adult Swim: the idea is that they put up all of their premiere episodes on their website, and *heavily advertise* that the episodes are on their website, and then get real ad revenue from the internet airing, using built-in commercials at the chapter breaks.

It's sort of like what Heroes did, but Adult Swim just actively *embraces* this more than any other channel I know of.

 

[Lindley]

Fox's decision to renew TSCC was partially based on web views. Plus the name-recognition with the upcoming movie, probably.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

I actually remember those discussions years ago, that was when I joined the board and was on the Enterprise forum all the time, trying to figure out if it was a good show or not.

Yeah, it's crazy that they don't use metadata from all sources. 'Pushing Daisies' first season just went on sale on DVD about a month or so ago. Is there any data on sales of those disks? Possible that was disappointing too, so it compounded Neilson data?

 

[Xerxus]

I'm not sure how you want the networks to capitalize on new media.
Though the cash-per-million is much higher through online distribution, the numbers are still a small fraction of the nielson numbers. Advertising through the television is still the primary source of income. Networks just can't rely on new media to earn their wages.


Advertisers aren't willing to pay/sponsor programs when their clip gets skipped over.
The only real way for the networks to make money is by putting advertisments in shows like in Eureka or in Terminator, and they're starting to become more prevalent.

I've noticed that recent neilson numbers sometimes include live + 24/48 hour viewing, which is what you're getting at.

 

[nx1701g]

Fox's decision to renew TSCC was partially based on web views. Plus the name-recognition with the upcoming movie, probably.

That is true; however, the live media is having an effect and is contributing to its move to Friday nights. From what I've read a great deal of their advertising revenue for part 2 of Season 2 is coming from Warner Brothers and Fox themselves.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The advertisers are well aware of the impact of DVRs - people use them to skip ads. So, being sensible people, advertisers refuse to pay for DVR viewing. Why pay for goods you aren't getting?

They are willing to count DVR viewership in what they pay for product placements in shows, since these cannot be zapped.

So DVR viewing is having two results:

1. Shows that DVR owners like get cancelled; shows that DVR owners don't like survive.

2. Shows that DVR owners like get in-show product placements. So if your favorite shows survive, expect a lot of plotlines involving Sprint, Nissan and Coca-Cola.

Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is really no such thing as free TV. You pay for it one way or the other.

Though the cash-per-million is much higher through online distribution, the numbers are still a small fraction of the nielson numbers. Advertising through the television is still the primary source of income. Networks just can't rely on new media to earn their wages.

I've certainly heard that's the case overall, but some shows like Heroes do far better than average for paid Internet viewing. Sure, the average TV show makes no money off new media, I'd like to know the stats for the few shows that are doing really well, comparatively speaking, in this arena.

Fox's decision to renew TSCC was partially based on web views. Plus the name-recognition with the upcoming movie, probably.

I've noticed some significant product placement in the show as well. And that's probably also helping out Knight Rider, which is pulling ratings so poor that even NBC should cancel it. The show is just one big product placement.

As for Adult Swim, cable channels can get by on lower viewership than networks because they get some % of cable subscriptions, don't they? So even if online viewing is a piddly percentage of the whole, they don't have as much ground to make up. Network shows still need to get sheer volume of viewership.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Fox's decision to renew TSCC was partially based on web views. Plus the name-recognition with the upcoming movie, probably.

Also, it might have something to do with the fact a lot of new shit they krank out each year is getting canned and this show is getting a decent sized fanbase, so keeping it alive a little longer just might save them from paying for a new crappy series that may not bring as many viewers.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Fox's decision to renew TSCC was partially based on web views. Plus the name-recognition with the upcoming movie, probably.

Also, it might have something to do with the fact a lot of new shit they krank out each year is getting canned and this show is getting a decent sized fanbase, so keeping it alive a little longer just might save them from paying for a new crappy series that may not bring as many viewers.

T:SCC isn't doing that well even by Fox standards. Going by its standing among Fox shows, it should have been cancelled by now. Product placements plus the new movie are probably keeping it going.

Another factor to consider is how many of these product placements come from the auto industry. Considering how they're suffering now, are they really going to have $$$ left over for any sort of TV advertising?

Here's an article about how iTunes downloads are pretty piddly to date.

For the Heroes episode that aired on October 27, we know that the average live+7 audience for Heroes was 9.68 million and the DVR viewing component of that (though a lot of it happened the same night the show aire) was 2.73 million. Combined VOD and Internet downloads for that episode were 68,966.

Blergh, don't expect iTunes to save the show. What other paid Internet viewing venues are there that do any significant business? Hulu?

 

[bigdaddy]

DVR recorders are now as common as VCRs, and simply buying the DVD box set and marathoning it is also an even more viable option than it used to be.

Really? Everyone I know has at least VCR, and NO ONE I know has a DVR.

 

[Sakrysta]

What other paid Internet viewing venues are there that do any significant business? Hulu?

Hulu is free to the viewer and generally has one advertiser (repeated about as frequently as the commercial breaks on TV) per episode. I don't know what they charge compared to a TV ad spot, but I can't imagine it'd be a significant amount.

 

[mswood]

Tvnumbers did an article comparing Heroes and what viewers saw it through web based platforms and web based stores (like itunes) and the numbers are still very small. Thus the revenue generated is rather small.

Now DVD thats a different story. Some shows can generated tremendous revenue off of DVD.

But most don't.

Here are some of the more interesting results of sales for last seasons shows and when they fell off the charts.

Office 838,000 units for an estimate of 25 million in revenue.

Heroes 893,000 units for an estimated 22 million
Grey's 661,000 units for an estimated 17 million.

Smallville 376,000 units for an estimated 14 million. House did similar.

Family Guy 430,000 units for an estimated 11 million

Simpsons 295,000 units for an estimated 8.8 million


Those were the big guns then we went to mid tier success

Supernatural 190,000 units for 7.7 million

Dexter for 7.5 million

Shield for 4 million

Pushing Diasies 47000 units for an estimates 935,000.

Pushing Daisies did poor on DVD.

 

[bigdaddy]

^ Do you mean TVbythenumbers? I have been trying to find websites that have DVD sales figures.

 

[Arrqh]

So DVR viewing is having two results:

1. Shows that DVR owners like get cancelled; shows that DVR owners don't like survive.

2. Shows that DVR owners like get in-show product placements. So if your favorite shows survive, expect a lot of plotlines involving Sprint, Nissan and Coca-Cola.

Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is really no such thing as free TV. You pay for it one way or the other.

The issue then becomes, what can the industry do to continue making a profit given the way new technologies are shaping the market?

The reason why it's still considered "new" media is because the industry has used the same business model for a very very long time. The mode of thinking has become entrenched. And as a result, they're very reluctant to truly embrace newer models that use new forms of content distribution. Many studios have given up chances to monetize existing distribution channels and instead spend money actively shutting them down. Progress is being made, but slowly, and the old ways of thinking are still evident in their slow steps.

When you get right down to it, the studio's are their own enemy. People want to watch their content in a convenient fashion and the studios need to figure out how to do that and still make a profit.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The advertisers are well aware of the impact of DVRs - people use them to skip ads. So, being sensible people, advertisers refuse to pay for DVR viewing. Why pay for goods you aren't getting?

They are willing to count DVR viewership in what they pay for product placements in shows, since these cannot be zapped.

So DVR viewing is having two results:

1. Shows that DVR owners like get cancelled; shows that DVR owners don't like survive.

2. Shows that DVR owners like get in-show product placements. So if your favorite shows survive, expect a lot of plotlines involving Sprint, Nissan and Coca-Cola.

Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is really no such thing as free TV. You pay for it one way or the other.

There have been studies, I'm guessing only relevant to the UK, which suggest even with a DVR views still watch around 30% of the adverts, and the sponsorship bumpers on the ad breaks make a huge impact because people are watching for those to stop fast forwarding.
Also, they said because of the fact people are concentrating on the screen to know when to stop fast forwarding they can actually pick up quite a lot of the brands advertised, as opposed to when not fast forwarding they may start to chat, let their minds wander or go out of the room to get something to eat or drink, etc.
So in reality brands in ads may have a bigger impact on people who use DVRs than a lot of people who don't.

 

[V]

2. Shows that DVR owners like get in-show product placements. So if your favorite shows survive, expect a lot of plotlines involving Sprint, Nissan and Coca-Cola.

of course, the problem with Battlestar Galactica, as opposed to every other hit Scifi show like Lost, Jericho, Heroes, Pushing Daises, or Terminator......is that they inherently cannot use product placement

space-based shows, particularly ones not set in the near-future or even in an Earth-based culture, simply cannot use product placement

Like, Blade Runner could, and Star Trek on an *outside* chance could "theoretically" do one or two somehow I guess....but Star Wars? Impossible.

And I judge from a lot of talk here that we consider the best scifi shows to be "space-based" ones. Now I actually think there a lot of good Earth-based scifi idead. Even Doctor Who, which I consider "space-based" (the good old Tom Baker days when they go to alien planets ALL the time) can conceivably run just Earth-based stories for a while (the Ninth Doctor, for example)

 

[Mr Light]

That's a good point re: watching fast-forwarded ads closely. When I tape something on VCR and watch it, when fast-forwarding I'm very carefully watching the ads I whiz by for the show to come back on. When I'm watching something live and it goes to commercial, I mute the TV and go to the bathroom or on the computer.

 

[EnderAKH]

DVR recorders are now as common as VCRs, and simply buying the DVD box set and marathoning it is also an even more viable option than it used to be.

Really? Everyone I know has at least VCR, and NO ONE I know has a DVR.

According to an article I read, they are estimating about 30% of homes have a DVR.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081123...ching_later;_ylt=AlmHFqRtyBRU6zjqlT2qT.5xFb8C

 

[Johnny Rico]

DVR recorders are now as common as VCRs, and simply buying the DVD box set and marathoning it is also an even more viable option than it used to be.

Really? Everyone I know has at least VCR, and NO ONE I know has a DVR.

That's funny, I haven't had a VCR hooked up to my system since 2001. Didn't have a DVR then either. Why? VHS looked like shit on my WEGA Trinitron flatscreen (no...not HD, just regular SD). And I even had a S-VHS player, and its S-VHS recordings looked like shit.

When I got my 1080p Sharp AQUOS last year, I got the E* (Echostar "DISH") ViP 622 DVR receiver. It's got 30 hours of HD content record time. The new 722s which came out a few months after I got the 622 have double that I believe.


Anyway, this industry has got to change just the way the music industry has had to change regarding the popularity of digital music files, (MP3s or WMA files) with the decline of CD sales. I myself still like to buy CDs as I like having the actual disc and artwork liner notes. And something on my shelf to show for it.

As for the Nielson Ratings, the whole thing is an archaic system anyway. I mean dio they still require it's customers to fill out paper sheets as to what they watch, or do they have electronic box trackers now? And if so, why can't every digital cable/satellite box do the the same and get a wider, more accurate idea of what the true ratings are?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

As for the Nielson Ratings, the whole thing is an archaic system anyway. I mean dio they still require it's customers to fill out paper sheets as to what they watch, or do they have electronic box trackers now? And if so, why can't every digital cable/satellite box do the the same and get a wider, more accurate idea of what the true ratings are?

I believe they have an electronic box in 5000 or so houses and another few thousand fill out the forms. We have a similar system here in the UK, with just as many people involved, I believe, but they do include timeshift data in their ratings.
As for why can't set top boxes include this data, well they can, but people apparently feel "spied upon" if they do. I know Sky TV here have a "Viewers Panel" who opt-in to their data being sent back to Sky. TiVo do collect the data too, and they can sell that data, or use it to compile their recommendations.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

DVR recorders are now as common as VCRs, and simply buying the DVD box set and marathoning it is also an even more viable option than it used to be.

Really? Everyone I know has at least VCR, and NO ONE I know has a DVR.

In my experience, VCRs are being scrapped and DVRs/TiVO are taking over. Personally I still use my trusty VCR as "FreeVo" but I'm the biggest cheapskate I know.

There have been studies, I'm guessing only relevant to the UK, which suggest even with a DVR views still watch around 30% of the adverts,

From what I've seen, ad viewing rates in America for TiVO et al are much lower than that. Seems like that's a change from what used to be reported, so maybe ad viewing rates go down as people become used to DVRs. Anyway, the advertisers refuse to pay more for DVR viewing and if people were watching ads, the networks would have a better argument for making them pay up. But that's not happening.