Is Nielsen even necessary anymore?

[CaptainHawk1]

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI119585/

This article brings up an interesting issue that I've felt needs addressing for a long time: Why do we need Nielsen anymore?

With the fact that most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite and most of those homes have converter boxes and/or DVR converter boxes, how hard is it for the service providers to determine how many people are watching what and when?

Demographics really isn't much of an issue if you ask me if the providers simply poll their customers to find out the demographics of each particular household and they can probably figure out pretty easily who's watching what.

I mean seriously why is a Nielsen meter or the little book you fill out even necessary and wouldn't the method as I propose it be much more accurate than a random sampling?

 

[Mistral]

I've thought that the big N became irrelevant with the widespread use of VCRs. It would be far simpler to program a reverse "bullet" into the cable boxes to let the cable companies know what channel is being watched/recorded. It would build a much larger, more accurate statistical universe. Then, maybe, shows like Sarah Connor wouldn't get the axe. I know that for every friend I have who watched it, two others would record it to watch over the weekend so they could go out on Friday night. How else would you track that kind of situation?

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I don't think that there's any question that my cable company is collecting data from my DVR. The question is, though, what are they doing with it?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"We" don't need Nielsens but they've never been for us anyway, so what does it matter what we want, or think about the situation?

Nielsens are for advertisers. The day the advertisers tell networks they no long require Nielsens data is the day Nielsens goes out of business. Why would anyone pay good money for data that can't be used to make money?

But the article's point that Nielsens is a monopoly and that's not healthy, is a good one. TiVO in theory could provide competition by starting to collect demographic data on their viewers, and then re-jiggering their numbers to compensate for the demographic skew and come up with a sample that is representative of the American public.

Then they could present those numbers as competition to Nielsens, and make the argument that their system is more accurate, because it's involuntary - nobody can lie about whether they are ignoring ads because TiVO can tell they're being zapped. Nielsens can't ever really say that you didn't go to the kitchen for a sandwich during the ads.

I don't think that there's any question that my cable company is collecting data from my DVR. The question is, though, what are they doing with it?

Discovering that it doesn't make much difference.

Since TV advertising is sold/measured based on the average commercial minute watched within 3 days of airdate (also referred to as C3 or C+3 ratings), and the very limited amount of data we have seen suggests that for most shows their Live+SD program rating and their C+3 ratings are very similar, my conclusion is that DVR viewing beyond the Live+SD time period has little advertising value. Since it has little advertising value it contributes very little value to the show. Of course, you’d rather have DVR viewers than no viewers, but on balance I think it’s a bad thing for the shows.

TVbythenumbers is generally a good site for analysis of downloading/DVR/DVD sales aspects of the TV biz.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

"We" don't need Nielsens but they've never been for us anyway, so what does it matter what we want, or think about the situation?

Nielsens are for advertisers. The day the advertisers tell networks they no long require Nielsens data is the day Nielsens goes out of business. Why would anyone pay good money for data that can't be used to make money?

Wow, that added nothing. Thanks for that.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"We" don't need Nielsens but they've never been for us anyway, so what does it matter what we want, or think about the situation?

Nielsens are for advertisers. The day the advertisers tell networks they no long require Nielsens data is the day Nielsens goes out of business. Why would anyone pay good money for data that can't be used to make money?

Wow, that added nothing. Thanks for that.

And your comment added nothing. Thanks for that.

Just reminding people of the reality of the situation.

And let me try explaining this again. I'll type sloooowly so you can comprehend it:

With the fact that most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite and most of those homes have converter boxes and/or DVR converter boxes, how hard is it for the service providers to determine how many people are watching what and when?

TiVO and DVRs users are not representative of the American population. It is KNOWN that they skew more white, higher income and higher education. The demographics of the individual viewers would have to be determined so that the rating service can compensate for the demographic skew. Until that happens, advertisers will never accept the data as valid, and they are right to do so.

Sigh. That's the problem with Nielsens discussions. Too few people actually know anything about statistics, so until everyone gets a basic education in the topic, these discussions go nowhere fast.

 

[John Picard]

I believe it is an inaccurate statement that, "most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite ". Where is the data to support that statement?

 

[CaptainHawk1]

"We" don't need Nielsens but they've never been for us anyway, so what does it matter what we want, or think about the situation?

By this logic, why discuss anything or have an opinion about any situation unless we have direct control over it or it directly involves us? That's what I mean by adding nothing.

Nielsens are for advertisers. The day the advertisers tell networks they no long require Nielsens data is the day Nielsens goes out of business. Why would anyone pay good money for data that can't be used to make money?

Pretty sure we're all aware of that. I'm suggesting that the Nielsen system is archaic.

But the article's point that Nielsens is a monopoly and that's not healthy, is a good one.

But that's not the point of this thread. I simply used that article as a springboard to what I believe is the bigger issue.

TiVO in theory could provide competition by starting to collect demographic data on their viewers, and then re-jiggering their numbers to compensate for the demographic skew and come up with a sample that is representative of the American public.

Then they could present those numbers as competition to Nielsens, and make the argument that their system is more accurate, because it's involuntary - nobody can lie about whether they are ignoring ads because TiVO can tell they're being zapped. Nielsens can't ever really say that you didn't go to the kitchen for a sandwich during the ads.

That's exactly what I already noted.

I don't think that there's any question that my cable company is collecting data from my DVR. The question is, though, what are they doing with it?

Discovering that it doesn't make much difference.

Since TV advertising is sold/measured based on the average commercial minute watched within 3 days of airdate (also referred to as C3 or C+3 ratings), and the very limited amount of data we have seen suggests that for most shows their Live+SD program rating and their C+3 ratings are very similar, my conclusion is that DVR viewing beyond the Live+SD time period has little advertising value. Since it has little advertising value it contributes very little value to the show. Of course, you’d rather have DVR viewers than no viewers, but on balance I think it’s a bad thing for the shows.

All this is tells me is that they have a very limited sample to compare to to begin with and the results are similar to what they already know. The article is full of holes. It admits that they have very limited data to go on, but suggest that this is enough to determine that has "very little value," which is also subjective and misleading in and of itself as "adding very little value" implies that it does add value and certainly isn't detrimental. The conclusions are based on a faulty process and limited data... which is ironic because TV ratings are based on a similarly faulty process. They also don't make any sense. How can limited data, non-detrimental impact equate to a conclusion of "a bad thing for the shows?" It's absurd.

TiVO and DVRs users are not representative of the American population. It is KNOWN that they skew more white, higher income and higher education.

You mean the demographic most likely to spend money on the advertisers.

The demographics of the individual viewers would have to be determined so that the rating service can compensate for the demographic skew. Until that happens, advertisers will never accept the data as valid, and they are right to do so.

My point is that they aren't doing a whole lot with the information they are collecting and they certainly could do more, and BTW, they can collect data from a standard converter box just as easily so I'm not exclusively talking about DVR's anyway so next time instead of typing slowly, read slowly.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I believe it is an inaccurate statement that, "most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite ". Where is the data to support that statement?

Since we're fond of using TV by the numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/1...row-to-284-cable-subscribers-flat-at-613/9840

 

[John Picard]

I believe it is an inaccurate statement that, "most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite ". Where is the data to support that statement?

Since we're fond of using TV by the numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/1...row-to-284-cable-subscribers-flat-at-613/9840

That's exactly what I needed to see; however, I find it interesting that with that many people "wired", why the delay/panic/confusion to switch to digital broadcasting?

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I believe it is an inaccurate statement that, "most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite ". Where is the data to support that statement?

Since we're fond of using TV by the numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/1...row-to-284-cable-subscribers-flat-at-613/9840

That's exactly what I needed to see; however, I find it interesting that with that many people "wired", why the delay/panic/confusion to switch to digital broadcasting?

It was completely unnecessary. They were given a two-year head start and these pandering politicians started complaining that a tiny fraction of their constituents were too stupid to have figured out what to do by now so they delayed the whole thing.

That and the fact they ran out of money for the converter box coupons because of course, it was a poorly run program that gave the coupons to people who didn't need it.

Don't worry, a week before June 12, they'll delay it again.

 

[John Picard]

Since we're fond of using TV by the numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/1...row-to-284-cable-subscribers-flat-at-613/9840

That's exactly what I needed to see; however, I find it interesting that with that many people "wired", why the delay/panic/confusion to switch to digital broadcasting?

It was completely unnecessary. They were given a two-year head start and these pandering politicians started complaining that a tiny fraction of their constituents were too stupid to have figured out what to do by now so they delayed the whole thing.

That and the fact they ran out of money for the converter box coupons because of course, it was a poorly run program that gave the coupons to people who didn't need it.

Don't worry, a week before June 12, they'll delay it again.

Oh, I know it was a stupid reason. I'm one of those who live in an area where all but four stations "flipped the switch" and I only get four stations. When June 12 comes, I still won't be ready and frankly I don't care.

 

[Mistral]

I believe it is an inaccurate statement that, "most of the households in the U.S. are either subscribers to cable or Satellite ". Where is the data to support that statement?

Since we're fond of using TV by the numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/1...row-to-284-cable-subscribers-flat-at-613/9840

That's exactly what I needed to see; however, I find it interesting that with that many people "wired", why the delay/panic/confusion to switch to digital broadcasting?

The people affected by the conversion are the ones with old-fashioned tvs-because they haven't "gotten with the times". They are stick in the muds, set in their way and afraid of change. Just like my dear old dad.

 

[miraclefan]

Nielsen's is outdated, I would be suprised if it's still in use past 2012!

 

[chrisspringob]

Any DVR alternative to Nielsen would still require some kind of system whereby users voluntarily provide demographic data to the company, and the users voluntarily provide info regarding who in the household is watching at any given time (as DVR has no way of knowing on it own which people in the house are watching). Otherwise, the data isn't very useful.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Any DVR alternative to Nielsen would still require some kind of system whereby users voluntarily provide demographic data to the company, and the users voluntarily provide info regarding who in the household is watching at any given time (as DVR has no way of knowing on it own which people in the house are watching). Otherwise, the data isn't very useful.

I said that in the OP.

Demographics really isn't much of an issue if you ask me if the providers simply poll their customers to find out the demographics of each particular household and they can probably figure out pretty easily who's watching what.

And BTW, just to drive the point home, I'm not necessarily talking about DVR's... They are just part of the picture. I'm also talking regular converter boxes as well or just simply DVR's that aren't in playback mode and are simply acting as converter boxes.

 

[chrisspringob]

Demographics really isn't much of an issue if you ask me if the providers simply poll their customers to find out the demographics of each particular household and they can probably figure out pretty easily who's watching what.

I'm not sure how they would be able to figure out who's watching what within the household. Remember, it's not just a matter of the demo of the show, but how many people in the house are watching at any given time. How do you distinguish between 1 person in the household watching something and 4 people in the household watching something? Don't you need some kind of Nielsen-like diary for that?

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I've thought about that and I can pretty much guarantee you that there's someone who can design a program to determine exactly who's watching what just knowing information about the household. TiVo already knows what to suggest based on viewing habits. Would it be impossible to reverse that concept and make it so when you turn your box on you can choose your personal user profile or if noine is selected the program is smart enough to figure out who's eatching what just based on the data from the profiles in the home.

 

[chrisspringob]

Well, you would first have to build separate personalized profiles for every person in the house, no? You write that TiVo already knows what to suggest based on viewing habits, but isn't that based on the collective viewing habits of everyone watching at that house? Or is there already some kind of system whereby individual members of a household have their own separate profiles with TiVo?

Edit: In fact, if there are no individual profiles for every person in the house, then I think this would be an intractable problem. Suppose, for example, that you have data indicating that family sitcoms do well in households where there's a nuclear family with mom, dad, and 2-3 kids. How can you ever figure out whether that means the parents are watching, the kids are watching, or both, unless you have some kind of system that individually tracks what each person is watching? It's not like you can compare against some sample of kids living on their own to see what they watch, because kids *don't* live on their own.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Well, you would first have to build separate personalized profiles for every person in the house, no? You write that TiVo already knows what to suggest based on viewing habits, but isn't that based on the collective viewing habits of everyone watching at that house? Or is there already some kind of system whereby individual members of a household have their own separate profiles with TiVo?

Edit: In fact, if there are no individual profiles for every person in the house, then I think this would be an intractable problem. Suppose, for example, that you have data indicating that family sitcoms do well in households where there's a nuclear family with mom, dad, and 2-3 kids. How can you ever figure out whether that means the parents are watching, the kids are watching, or both, unless you have some kind of system that individually tracks what each person is watching? It's not like you can compare against some sample of kids living on their own to see what they watch, because kids *don't* live on their own.

First, I have a DVR, not TiVo but I'm pretty sure that TiVo has individual profiles. Somebody could correct me if I'm wrong on that but I'm not looking it up as it doesn't really matter becuse it certainly could.

Second, you can have intuitive software designed to figure out exactly who in the household is watching what by viewing patterns alone. Like I said, the concept is not that it's not that complicated for the right minds at work to figure out. Not only that, you could set the thing up to not only have individual profiles, but group profiles as well like "Mom and Dad," "Whole Family," "Kids," "Bobby and Tommy."

You're thinking is very linear on this. Think outside the box and consider the capabilities of intuitive AI.