Ask Not Where the Broadcast Audience Went, It Went To Cable
We’ve seen that primetime broadcast network viewership has been on the decline since the early 80’s. But we’ve also seen that primetime TV viewing by household has been relatively flat from the early 90’s. Where did the primetime network audience go?
It went to cable.
As the prime-time broadcast network audience began declining in the early 1980’s, it shifted to cable networks, and by an ever increasing amount, basic/ad supported cable networks.
Some interesting trends jump out.
Over the past 20+ years, Independent Stations have joined up and become Network Affiliates. Note the ever growing list of networks below. I am looking for good data on the number of Independent stations vs. Network Affiliates over time, but conventional wisdom is that their numbers have shrunk substantially. That’s why I colored both of those series blue. I think they should be considered part of the same viewership trend. Taken together, those two groups have gone from a rating of 54.5 to 32.7, a decline of 40%.
At the same time, Public broadcast primetime viewing has fallen from a HH rating of 2.6 to 1.4, a similar percentage decline of about 46%.
Although I was mostly coherent in the mid-80’s, it was quite a surprise that in 1984-85 audiences were watching more Premium/Pay Cable than Ad/Basic cable.
What is undeniable is that the growth of Ad Supported/Basic cable viewing was not followed by a similar growth in premium/pay cable viewing. Premium/Pay cable has seen its share fall modestly during the period. It’s hard to compare the Premium/Pay Cable numbers before 1999 with those after 1999 because of the definition change (noted below) though.
In fact, today more people watch “other” cable (shopping, music, etc) cable than watch premium/pay cable.
The last two seasons in our data do show an uptick for Network Affiliate+Independent ratings, but I think that might largely be due to the change in ratings data from Live to Live+7. We know that broadcast shows are time-shifted (DVR viewed) much more than are cable shows, so that could substantially explain the increase. Unfortunately, we don’t have a breakout of data comparing the difference, so that’s just a guess.
Primetime HH Rating by Season 1984-2007
|
Season |
Network Affiliates |
Independent |
Public |
Premium/Pay Cable |
Ad/Basic Cable |
Other Cable |
| 1984-85 |
44.8 |
9.7 |
2.6 |
4.0 |
3.6 |
|
| 1985-86 |
45.1 |
10.1 |
2.5 |
3.4 |
3.9 |
|
| 1986-87 |
43.3 |
10.5 |
2.7 |
3.3 |
4.7 |
|
| 1987-88 |
40.1 |
11.5 |
2.5 |
3.8 |
6.0 |
|
| 1988-89 |
38.7 |
11.7 |
2.4 |
3.9 |
7.5 |
|
| 1989-90 |
36.5 |
11.9 |
2.2 |
3.6 |
9.0 |
|
| 1990-91* |
38.4 |
7.8 |
2.3 |
3.4 |
11.6 |
|
| 1991-92 |
41.0 |
5.5 |
2.1 |
3.1 |
12.8 |
|
| 1992-93 |
40.4 |
5.7 |
2.2 |
3.0 |
13.6 |
|
| 1993-94 |
40.5 |
6.1 |
2.2 |
3.0 |
14.1 |
|
| 1994-95 |
37.8 |
6.4 |
2.2 |
3.1 |
15.9 |
|
| 1995-96 |
35.7 |
6.6 |
2.1 |
3.3 |
18.0 |
|
| 1996-97 |
33.2 |
6.7 |
2.1 |
3.7 |
19.8 |
|
| 1997-98 |
31.4 |
6.7 |
2.0 |
3.9 |
22.3 |
|
| 1998-99 |
31.3 |
7.2 |
2.0 |
4.2 |
24.1 |
|
| 1999-00 |
34.7 |
2.1 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
24.0 |
1.9 |
| 2000-01 |
32.6 |
2.4 |
1.9 |
3.5 |
26.0 |
2.1 |
| 2001-02 |
30.3 |
2.5 |
1.6 |
3.5 |
28.2 |
2.1 |
| 2002-03 |
29.6 |
2.6 |
1.7 |
3.6 |
29.4 |
2.4 |
| 2003-04 |
28.9 |
2.9 |
1.6 |
3.4 |
30.9 |
2.9 |
| 2004-05 |
27.8 |
3.7 |
1.6 |
3.1 |
32.8 |
3.2 |
| 2005-06** |
29.1 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
2.8 |
33.5 |
3.4 |
| 2006-07*** |
31.5 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
2.5 |
33.1 |
2.9 |
Network Affiliates:
1984-90: ABC, CBS, NBC affiliates
1991-1999: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX Affiliates
1999-December 25, 2005: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, PAX affiliates
December 26, 2005-January 29 2006: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, UNI, PAX affiliates
January 30, 2006-February 26, 2006: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, UNI, TEL, PAX affiliates
February 27, 2006-August 27, 2006: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, UNI, TEL, TF, PAX affiliates
August 28, 2006 – September 3, 2006 : ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, UNI, TEL, TF, AZA, PAX affiliates
September 4, 2006 – Present : ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, UNI, TEL, TF, AZA, PAX, MNT affiliates
Independent:
1984-90: Commercial independent stations including FOX affiliates and TBS
1991-99: Commericial independent stations including WB, UPN affiiliates and superstations except forTBS.
1999-present: Commercial independent stations including Telemundo and Univision affiliates. Excludes TBS
Public: PBS affiliates
Ad Supported/Basic Cable:
1999-present: Viewing to advertiser supported cable networks. Includes TBS and WGN cable.
1984-99: Tuning to basic cable including Pay-Per-View
1991-1999: Tuning to basic cable including TBS and Pay-Per-View.
Premium/Pay Cable:
1999-present: Viewing to premium pay cable services.
1984-99: Cable Subscribers receiving at least one premium channel. This does not include Pay-Per-View.
All Other Cable:
1999-present: tuning to cable networks that are neither ad-supported nor premium pay, includes pay-per-view, interactive channels, home shopping channels, and audio only feeds.
*Effective 1991, FOX and TBS changed from Independents to Network Affiliates and Basic Cable Respectively.
**Combination of Live data and Live+7 data.
***Live+7 data
All years prior to 2005-6 are Live Data.
Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2008 Nielsen Media Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I can tell you where they went. It is because of a little invention….(I think Al Gore invented it):). its call the INTERNET. That is why TV is down. People are on-line playing games and on Myspace and youtube. Its a shame, but its the truth.
I can tell you where they went. It is because of a little invention….(I think Al Gore invented it):). its call the INTERNET. That is why TV is down. People are on-line playing games and on Myspace and youtube. Its a shame, but its the truth.
Bryan: BZZT. Wrong answer. Despite the Internet, TV viewing in the aggregate is not down during primetime, although last year was the first year ever where it stalled a little bit.
Apparently young people can watch American Idol, surf the web, send instant messages and text messages all at the same time.
Bryan: BZZT. Wrong answer. Despite the Internet, TV viewing in the aggregate is not down during primetime, although last year was the first year ever where it stalled a little bit.
Apparently young people can watch American Idol, surf the web, send instant messages and text messages all at the same time.
Bryan: BZZT. Wrong answer. Despite the Internet, TV viewing in the aggregate is not down during primetime, although last year was the first year ever where it stalled a little bit.
Apparently young people can watch American Idol, surf the web, send instant messages and text messages all at the same time.
Indeed. One of the reasons I did this post was because there is so much wrong information out there as conventional wisdom. Internet time has certainly increased, but not at the expense of overall primetime TV viewing.
Total primetime TV viewing by household is effectively the same since the early 90’s, it’s just *what* people watch that has changed.
Indeed. One of the reasons I did this post was because there is so much wrong information out there as conventional wisdom. Internet time has certainly increased, but not at the expense of overall primetime TV viewing.
Total primetime TV viewing by household is effectively the same since the early 90's, it's just *what* people watch that has changed.
Indeed. One of the reasons I did this post was because there is so much wrong information out there as conventional wisdom. Internet time has certainly increased, but not at the expense of overall primetime TV viewing.
Total primetime TV viewing by household is effectively the same since the early 90's, it's just *what* people watch that has changed.
why does your graph look like the seashore? all you need is a ferris wheel and it’s santa monica.
why does your graph look like the seashore? all you need is a ferris wheel and it's santa monica.
why does your graph look like the seashore? all you need is a ferris wheel and it's santa monica.
oh man, secret is out. Most of Bill’s charts are really just arial views lifted from Microsoft’s flight simulator. I hadn’t really noticed just how much the shore it does look like, but now that you bring it up, I can’t stop noticing it!
oh man, secret is out. Most of Bill's charts are really just arial views lifted from Microsoft's flight simulator. I hadn't really noticed just how much the shore it does look like, but now that you bring it up, I can't stop noticing it!
oh man, secret is out. Most of Bill's charts are really just arial views lifted from Microsoft's flight simulator. I hadn't really noticed just how much the shore it does look like, but now that you bring it up, I can't stop noticing it!
My Internet answer was a sarcastic one. “What” people watch has changed dramatically. No pun intended. When you were posting the flash back ratings of the 90’s and 80’s year the top 20 was littered with comedy. Not in the 2000’s. Dramas and sad to say reality. I wonder if it is 18-49 year olds that made this change. Im 32, back 10-15 years ago when I was younger, I watched those comedies. I have grown and now I love the drama’s. Maybe its that way for a majority and we are still in the 18-49 bracket. I know your going to say that Kids were born after me too but.. kids have a lot more technology to use and TV is not the only thing used for entertainment like it may have been back then. Just a opinion. I didn’t really even think it thru just came as I was writing…so no making fun.
My Internet answer was a sarcastic one. “What” people watch has changed dramatically. No pun intended. When you were posting the flash back ratings of the 90's and 80's year the top 20 was littered with comedy. Not in the 2000's. Dramas and sad to say reality. I wonder if it is 18-49 year olds that made this change. Im 32, back 10-15 years ago when I was younger, I watched those comedies. I have grown and now I love the drama's. Maybe its that way for a majority and we are still in the 18-49 bracket. I know your going to say that Kids were born after me too but.. kids have a lot more technology to use and TV is not the only thing used for entertainment like it may have been back then. Just a opinion. I didn't really even think it thru just came as I was writing…so no making fun.
My Internet answer was a sarcastic one. “What” people watch has changed dramatically. No pun intended. When you were posting the flash back ratings of the 90's and 80's year the top 20 was littered with comedy. Not in the 2000's. Dramas and sad to say reality. I wonder if it is 18-49 year olds that made this change. Im 32, back 10-15 years ago when I was younger, I watched those comedies. I have grown and now I love the drama's. Maybe its that way for a majority and we are still in the 18-49 bracket. I know your going to say that Kids were born after me too but.. kids have a lot more technology to use and TV is not the only thing used for entertainment like it may have been back then. Just a opinion. I didn't really even think it thru just came as I was writing…so no making fun.
Fair enough Bryan. I think we’ll see continued attempts at shifting back to comedy. But comedy hits are a double-edged sword. You wind up having to pay $6 million an episode just to the actors if it gets to theSeinfeld or Friends level.
Reality is much cheaper to make, so the margins, even with lower ratings are sometimes better. But, it’s seemingly impossible to syndicate reality — although if there isn’t already I believe there will wind up being a cable channel that does nothing but run old reality shows 24×7!
If ABC is considering keeping According to Jim around due to syndication revenues, imagine just how badly CBS wants to find the next Two and a Half Men. This is why I believe we will see at least an attempt at swinging the pendulum back towards comedies.
Fair enough Bryan. I think we'll see continued attempts at shifting back to comedy. But comedy hits are a double-edged sword. You wind up having to pay $6 million an episode just to the actors if it gets to theSeinfeld or Friends level.
Reality is much cheaper to make, so the margins, even with lower ratings are sometimes better. But, it's seemingly impossible to syndicate reality — although if there isn't already I believe there will wind up being a cable channel that does nothing but run old reality shows 24×7!
If ABC is considering keeping According to Jim around due to syndication revenues, imagine just how badly CBS wants to find the next Two and a Half Men. This is why I believe we will see at least an attempt at swinging the pendulum back towards comedies.
Fair enough Bryan. I think we'll see continued attempts at shifting back to comedy. But comedy hits are a double-edged sword. You wind up having to pay $6 million an episode just to the actors if it gets to theSeinfeld or Friends level.
Reality is much cheaper to make, so the margins, even with lower ratings are sometimes better. But, it's seemingly impossible to syndicate reality — although if there isn't already I believe there will wind up being a cable channel that does nothing but run old reality shows 24×7!
If ABC is considering keeping According to Jim around due to syndication revenues, imagine just how badly CBS wants to find the next Two and a Half Men. This is why I believe we will see at least an attempt at swinging the pendulum back towards comedies.
Ah, the seashore, it must be part of my subliminal motivation…..
Ah, the seashore, it must be part of my subliminal motivation…..
Ah, the seashore, it must be part of my subliminal motivation…..
i think other than Sports (NFL & College Football only) and some reality (AI & Survivor only) and 24, there’s nothing else to watch for me. I’ll put a movie on the DVD player or check youtube for something to watch.
Thats the state of TV for me.
i think other than Sports (NFL & College Football only) and some reality (AI & Survivor only) and 24, there's nothing else to watch for me. I'll put a movie on the DVD player or check youtube for something to watch.
Thats the state of TV for me.
i think other than Sports (NFL & College Football only) and some reality (AI & Survivor only) and 24, there's nothing else to watch for me. I'll put a movie on the DVD player or check youtube for something to watch.
Thats the state of TV for me.
So here’s my question. Where do video games fit in? Videogame sales have increased dramatically in the same time frame. Hell, they even use the same display device. Videotapes and DVD’s also expanded in the same time frame.
So are people not using these other TV sources during prime time? Are the ratings not measuring that usage? How can the same percentage of people watch cable or broadcast while playing games or watching discs on the same TV?
So here's my question. Where do video games fit in? Videogame sales have increased dramatically in the same time frame. Hell, they even use the same display device. Videotapes and DVD's also expanded in the same time frame.
So are people not using these other TV sources during prime time? Are the ratings not measuring that usage? How can the same percentage of people watch cable or broadcast while playing games or watching discs on the same TV?
So here's my question. Where do video games fit in? Videogame sales have increased dramatically in the same time frame. Hell, they even use the same display device. Videotapes and DVD's also expanded in the same time frame.
So are people not using these other TV sources during prime time? Are the ratings not measuring that usage? How can the same percentage of people watch cable or broadcast while playing games or watching discs on the same TV?
You ask good questions, Daniel. Some of it’s because sometimes things aren’t always apples-to-apples comparisons.
The average primetime viewing per household chart that’s linked to near the top of the post only measures household data and in a very simplistic way (how much time was a tv, any tv) turned on. That average went up steadily for years even as the # of households grew, but especially in households with more than one person (most of them) that could happen even as the kids played video games.
I don’t believe the “same tv” comes into play and that if ONE TV was turned on for 2 hours, that counted as 2 hours of household viewing for that household — though if 2 tvs were turned on and watching tv it still only counted as 2 hours.
If we had access to it and I don’t believe we do, but Bill will correct me if I am wrong — and could produce an average viewing per PERSON (vs. household) chart, there’s no doubt in my mind that has been affected by videogames, Internet, etc.
Still on a per share of televisions turned on and watching TV, broadcast has lost all of this share to Cable. TVs turned on and watching video games would not come into play in the share calculation.
Hope that made sense…
You ask good questions, Daniel. Some of it's because sometimes things aren't always apples-to-apples comparisons.
The average primetime viewing per household chart that's linked to near the top of the post only measures household data and in a very simplistic way (how much time was a tv, any tv) turned on. That average went up steadily for years even as the # of households grew, but especially in households with more than one person (most of them) that could happen even as the kids played video games.
I don't believe the “same tv” comes into play and that if ONE TV was turned on for 2 hours, that counted as 2 hours of household viewing for that household — though if 2 tvs were turned on and watching tv it still only counted as 2 hours.
If we had access to it and I don't believe we do, but Bill will correct me if I am wrong — and could produce an average viewing per PERSON (vs. household) chart, there's no doubt in my mind that has been affected by videogames, Internet, etc.
Still on a per share of televisions turned on and watching TV, broadcast has lost all of this share to Cable. TVs turned on and watching video games would not come into play in the share calculation.
Hope that made sense…
You ask good questions, Daniel. Some of it's because sometimes things aren't always apples-to-apples comparisons.
The average primetime viewing per household chart that's linked to near the top of the post only measures household data and in a very simplistic way (how much time was a tv, any tv) turned on. That average went up steadily for years even as the # of households grew, but especially in households with more than one person (most of them) that could happen even as the kids played video games.
I don't believe the “same tv” comes into play and that if ONE TV was turned on for 2 hours, that counted as 2 hours of household viewing for that household — though if 2 tvs were turned on and watching tv it still only counted as 2 hours.
If we had access to it and I don't believe we do, but Bill will correct me if I am wrong — and could produce an average viewing per PERSON (vs. household) chart, there's no doubt in my mind that has been affected by videogames, Internet, etc.
Still on a per share of televisions turned on and watching TV, broadcast has lost all of this share to Cable. TVs turned on and watching video games would not come into play in the share calculation.
Hope that made sense…
Daniel, hours spent online and playing video games came from somewhere else, not primetime television viewing, because that’s been flat for over a decade.
All Day television viewing was rising until just recently when it leveled off.
Daniel, hours spent online and playing video games came from somewhere else, not primetime television viewing, because that's been flat for over a decade.
All Day television viewing was rising until just recently when it leveled off.
Daniel, hours spent online and playing video games came from somewhere else, not primetime television viewing, because that's been flat for over a decade.
All Day television viewing was rising until just recently when it leveled off.
I disagree Bill…we just lack the data to measure what impact if any that has as we can’t track per person viewing averages (and if we can, point me to it cuz I’d love to see it!)
I disagree Bill…we just lack the data to measure what impact if any that has as we can't track per person viewing averages (and if we can, point me to it cuz I'd love to see it!)
I disagree Bill…we just lack the data to measure what impact if any that has as we can't track per person viewing averages (and if we can, point me to it cuz I'd love to see it!)
You are correct sir!
We have no personal data to rely on, only household data, so there definitely could be different individual patterns today than there were in the past that blend together producing that household result.
You are correct sir!
We have no personal data to rely on, only household data, so there definitely could be different individual patterns today than there were in the past that blend together producing that household result.
You are correct sir!
We have no personal data to rely on, only household data, so there definitely could be different individual patterns today than there were in the past that blend together producing that household result.
Here is an article from our old friends at Nielsen discussing video game usage. As you say, data is very hard to come by, but here is a little sample of what they say. I guess World of Warcraft is the American Idol of games.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=92202d7fd9ef3110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD
P.S. I hope this link works. If not, just forget I said anything.
Here is an article from our old friends at Nielsen discussing video game usage. As you say, data is very hard to come by, but here is a little sample of what they say. I guess World of Warcraft is the American Idol of games.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Publ...
P.S. I hope this link works. If not, just forget I said anything.
Here is an article from our old friends at Nielsen discussing video game usage. As you say, data is very hard to come by, but here is a little sample of what they say. I guess World of Warcraft is the American Idol of games.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Publ...
P.S. I hope this link works. If not, just forget I said anything.
It works though as we’re more than familiar with that site can be slowwwwww.
I’ll note by your comparison, Bill is the mindless, dumbed-down, reality TV World of Warcraft playing one of TVbytheNumbers. In fact, one of his motivations for this site was having something to do as he wound down from “the game that ate his brain”.
The Videogame data usage isn’t hard to come by — what’s hard to come by is anything that would imply the impact on TV viewership.
I’m not Nielsen/Network conspiracy theorist when it comes to show data, but if we had an imaginary $100,000 to buy the trendline on hours of TV per viewer by age demographic over the last 20 years, I’m not sure CBS, ABC, et al wouldn’t pay Nielsen $200,000 not to give it to us!
P.S. thanks for the link!
It works though as we're more than familiar with that site can be slowwwwww.
I'll note by your comparison, Bill is the mindless, dumbed-down, reality TV World of Warcraft playing one of TVbytheNumbers. In fact, one of his motivations for this site was having something to do as he wound down from “the game that ate his brain”.
The Videogame data usage isn't hard to come by — what's hard to come by is anything that would imply the impact on TV viewership.
I'm not Nielsen/Network conspiracy theorist when it comes to show data, but if we had an imaginary $100,000 to buy the trendline on hours of TV per viewer by age demographic over the last 20 years, I'm not sure CBS, ABC, et al wouldn't pay Nielsen $200,000 not to give it to us!
P.S. thanks for the link!
It works though as we're more than familiar with that site can be slowwwwww.
I'll note by your comparison, Bill is the mindless, dumbed-down, reality TV World of Warcraft playing one of TVbytheNumbers. In fact, one of his motivations for this site was having something to do as he wound down from “the game that ate his brain”.
The Videogame data usage isn't hard to come by — what's hard to come by is anything that would imply the impact on TV viewership.
I'm not Nielsen/Network conspiracy theorist when it comes to show data, but if we had an imaginary $100,000 to buy the trendline on hours of TV per viewer by age demographic over the last 20 years, I'm not sure CBS, ABC, et al wouldn't pay Nielsen $200,000 not to give it to us!
P.S. thanks for the link!
I’m gonna toss out another link I found from Neilsen. This is a 7 page PDF so be aware of that for speed.
Check out page 6 for a few answers.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/nmr_static/docs/Nielsen_Report_State_Console_03507.pdf
I'm gonna toss out another link I found from Neilsen. This is a 7 page PDF so be aware of that for speed.
Check out page 6 for a few answers.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/nmr_static/docs/...
I'm gonna toss out another link I found from Neilsen. This is a 7 page PDF so be aware of that for speed.
Check out page 6 for a few answers.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/nmr_static/docs/...
Thanks again. I’ve seen that stuff, but it doesn’t give me what I really want. Average hours of television per person, total day, and primetime across the total population and in the demos. I can infer that there are ~10 million men 18-34 years old who aren’t watching TV at the peak of prime-time, but i can’t really discern from that the actual effect on overall viewing, and it’s but one segment.
Trust me, I played a LOT of Madden, MLB, NBA, and Tiger Woods golf past the age of 34! I never said I wasn’t a video game junky though I haven’t been in some time — I just never got into the WoW.
But if you could see the trend line on tv hours per person, instead of HH, I think in light of the household averages holding up, it would be be very interesting.
Thanks again. I've seen that stuff, but it doesn't give me what I really want. Average hours of television per person, total day, and primetime across the total population and in the demos. I can infer that there are ~10 million men 18-34 years old who aren't watching TV at the peak of prime-time, but i can't really discern from that the actual effect on overall viewing, and it's but one segment.
Trust me, I played a LOT of Madden, MLB, NBA, and Tiger Woods golf past the age of 34! I never said I wasn't a video game junky though I haven't been in some time — I just never got into the WoW.
But if you could see the trend line on tv hours per person, instead of HH, I think in light of the household averages holding up, it would be be very interesting.
Thanks again. I've seen that stuff, but it doesn't give me what I really want. Average hours of television per person, total day, and primetime across the total population and in the demos. I can infer that there are ~10 million men 18-34 years old who aren't watching TV at the peak of prime-time, but i can't really discern from that the actual effect on overall viewing, and it's but one segment.
Trust me, I played a LOT of Madden, MLB, NBA, and Tiger Woods golf past the age of 34! I never said I wasn't a video game junky though I haven't been in some time — I just never got into the WoW.
But if you could see the trend line on tv hours per person, instead of HH, I think in light of the household averages holding up, it would be be very interesting.
I know in my experience I pretty much multi-task; I have a TV window in the upper right hand corner of my PC with a TV card and I will text and chat during shows. If I’m on the computer I’ll mute the TV and listen to podcasts and music, but I’ll still watch it with the captioning on.
I also think another thing that should be kept in mind is that many cable networks loop their primetime programming after 11pm, so those who don’t catch a show the first time do it, say, after work if they’re on second shift like me. That’s how I’ll watch on a work night, mixed in with DVR programming and podcasts. So really primetime seems to have spread beyond the traditional 8-11 and further for many people.
I know in my experience I pretty much multi-task; I have a TV window in the upper right hand corner of my PC with a TV card and I will text and chat during shows. If I'm on the computer I'll mute the TV and listen to podcasts and music, but I'll still watch it with the captioning on.
I also think another thing that should be kept in mind is that many cable networks loop their primetime programming after 11pm, so those who don't catch a show the first time do it, say, after work if they're on second shift like me. That's how I'll watch on a work night, mixed in with DVR programming and podcasts. So really primetime seems to have spread beyond the traditional 8-11 and further for many people.
I know in my experience I pretty much multi-task; I have a TV window in the upper right hand corner of my PC with a TV card and I will text and chat during shows. If I'm on the computer I'll mute the TV and listen to podcasts and music, but I'll still watch it with the captioning on.
I also think another thing that should be kept in mind is that many cable networks loop their primetime programming after 11pm, so those who don't catch a show the first time do it, say, after work if they're on second shift like me. That's how I'll watch on a work night, mixed in with DVR programming and podcasts. So really primetime seems to have spread beyond the traditional 8-11 and further for many people.
Daniel, Thanks for the links, we always appreciate when folks can bring in more data for everyone in the discussion.
As Robert said, I’d love to see TV hours per person too, particularly if we could get age breakdowns. I am sure that data is out there somewhere, but my guess is that it’s not free.
Robert is also correct in that I played *way* too much World of Warcraft in 2005-7, and your comparison to American Idol is more apt than you may know. That single game has in some ways sucked the air out of other segments of the PC and console game industry, because it is guessed that sales of other games have fallen because *everyone* was playing WoW.
Daniel, Thanks for the links, we always appreciate when folks can bring in more data for everyone in the discussion.
As Robert said, I'd love to see TV hours per person too, particularly if we could get age breakdowns. I am sure that data is out there somewhere, but my guess is that it's not free.
Robert is also correct in that I played *way* too much World of Warcraft in 2005-7, and your comparison to American Idol is more apt than you may know. That single game has in some ways sucked the air out of other segments of the PC and console game industry, because it is guessed that sales of other games have fallen because *everyone* was playing WoW.
Daniel, Thanks for the links, we always appreciate when folks can bring in more data for everyone in the discussion.
As Robert said, I'd love to see TV hours per person too, particularly if we could get age breakdowns. I am sure that data is out there somewhere, but my guess is that it's not free.
Robert is also correct in that I played *way* too much World of Warcraft in 2005-7, and your comparison to American Idol is more apt than you may know. That single game has in some ways sucked the air out of other segments of the PC and console game industry, because it is guessed that sales of other games have fallen because *everyone* was playing WoW.
So in some regards, EA became like CBS on Tuesday nights?
So in some regards, EA became like CBS on Tuesday nights?
So in some regards, EA became like CBS on Tuesday nights?
Basic, basic question here from a non-TV person. If the combined network/independent household rating for the 2006/07 season was 32.7.
Does that mean: On an average night in primetime during the 06/07 season, 32.7% of households were tuned in to any network or independent TV station. As an advertiser, you would have to purchase spots during every commercial break on every network/independent station during primetime to attempt to reach 32.7% of households.
Would love share this information with some folks, but not sure how to source it or explain it properly? Can your data table be sourced back to something…I assume Nielsen, but did you do any mathmatical voodoo to it or is it pulled straight?
Basic, basic question here from a non-TV person. If the combined network/independent household rating for the 2006/07 season was 32.7.
Does that mean: On an average night in primetime during the 06/07 season, 32.7% of households were tuned in to any network or independent TV station. As an advertiser, you would have to purchase spots during every commercial break on every network/independent station during primetime to attempt to reach 32.7% of households.
Would love share this information with some folks, but not sure how to source it or explain it properly? Can your data table be sourced back to something…I assume Nielsen, but did you do any mathmatical voodoo to it or is it pulled straight?
Basic, basic question here from a non-TV person. If the combined network/independent household rating for the 2006/07 season was 32.7.
Does that mean: On an average night in primetime during the 06/07 season, 32.7% of households were tuned in to any network or independent TV station. As an advertiser, you would have to purchase spots during every commercial break on every network/independent station during primetime to attempt to reach 32.7% of households.
Would love share this information with some folks, but not sure how to source it or explain it properly? Can your data table be sourced back to something…I assume Nielsen, but did you do any mathmatical voodoo to it or is it pulled straight?
Lisa,the data above comes directly from Nielsen Media.
They make available to the press a spreadsheet entitled “Share of Audience”. The numbers above are directly taken from the “Broadcast Calendar (TV Season)” HH Prime page.
The HH ratings numbers were taken directly from that page not calculated in any way by me, they are either Live [pre-2005-6], a mix of Live and Live+7 [2005-6], or Live+7 [2006-7].
A HH rating is a 1% share of the US TV households for the particular year. That works great for showing the % shift, but not so much for absolute numbers [i.e. a 1 HH rating in 2006-7 is far more HH's than a 1 HH rating in 1984-5].
So, it is correct to say that on average, during primetime in 2006-7 31.5% of the US TV HHs were tuned to network affiliates [or in the case of that year, watched the shows within 7 days on their DVRs]
Feel free to email me at bill at tvbythenumbers.com if you have any questions.
Lisa,the data above comes directly from Nielsen Media.
They make available to the press a spreadsheet entitled “Share of Audience”. The numbers above are directly taken from the “Broadcast Calendar (TV Season)” HH Prime page.
The HH ratings numbers were taken directly from that page not calculated in any way by me, they are either Live [pre-2005-6], a mix of Live and Live+7 [2005-6], or Live+7 [2006-7].
A HH rating is a 1% share of the US TV households for the particular year. That works great for showing the % shift, but not so much for absolute numbers [i.e. a 1 HH rating in 2006-7 is far more HH's than a 1 HH rating in 1984-5].
So, it is correct to say that on average, during primetime in 2006-7 31.5% of the US TV HHs were tuned to network affiliates [or in the case of that year, watched the shows within 7 days on their DVRs]
Feel free to email me at bill at tvbythenumbers.com if you have any questions.
Lisa,the data above comes directly from Nielsen Media.
They make available to the press a spreadsheet entitled “Share of Audience”. The numbers above are directly taken from the “Broadcast Calendar (TV Season)” HH Prime page.
The HH ratings numbers were taken directly from that page not calculated in any way by me, they are either Live [pre-2005-6], a mix of Live and Live+7 [2005-6], or Live+7 [2006-7].
A HH rating is a 1% share of the US TV households for the particular year. That works great for showing the % shift, but not so much for absolute numbers [i.e. a 1 HH rating in 2006-7 is far more HH's than a 1 HH rating in 1984-5].
So, it is correct to say that on average, during primetime in 2006-7 31.5% of the US TV HHs were tuned to network affiliates [or in the case of that year, watched the shows within 7 days on their DVRs]
Feel free to email me at bill at tvbythenumbers.com if you have any questions.
Whew. I don’t blame Bill for dodging the advertising question…there are problems with averages of averages.
If you bought every spot on every network, and especially if you did it every night, you would wind up actually reaching more than 32.7%.
The 32.7% represents the average of all the 15 minute periods. if you went with your strategy your actual HH reach would ultimately be MUCH greater than 32.7%. some periods would be lower than average, some would be higher than average. if you did that multiple nights you would actually wind up reaching well, well over 32.7% of HH
Whew. I don't blame Bill for dodging the advertising question…there are problems with averages of averages.
If you bought every spot on every network, and especially if you did it every night, you would wind up actually reaching more than 32.7%.
The 32.7% represents the average of all the 15 minute periods. if you went with your strategy your actual HH reach would ultimately be MUCH greater than 32.7%. some periods would be lower than average, some would be higher than average. if you did that multiple nights you would actually wind up reaching well, well over 32.7% of HH
Whew. I don't blame Bill for dodging the advertising question…there are problems with averages of averages.
If you bought every spot on every network, and especially if you did it every night, you would wind up actually reaching more than 32.7%.
The 32.7% represents the average of all the 15 minute periods. if you went with your strategy your actual HH reach would ultimately be MUCH greater than 32.7%. some periods would be lower than average, some would be higher than average. if you did that multiple nights you would actually wind up reaching well, well over 32.7% of HH
And very insightful by Robert to see that I had dodged the advertising question!
That’s why I included my email address. Things start to get lots more complicated when you start talking about how to reach certain % of the public.
And very insightful by Robert to see that I had dodged the advertising question!
That's why I included my email address. Things start to get lots more complicated when you start talking about how to reach certain % of the public.
And very insightful by Robert to see that I had dodged the advertising question!
That's why I included my email address. Things start to get lots more complicated when you start talking about how to reach certain % of the public.
Those numbers are an eye-opener. They are somewhat surprising until I think about how I watch TV. Beating boredom is the key for me, more than being enlightened or even all that entertained. To me pay cable is like a smorgasbord. I may watch an episode of a silly tween show like ” Greeks,” honestly just to look at the beautiful young women. Then I may never watch it again. I enjoy even the edited version of Sopranos on A&E, since I missed out on the first three seasons. I watched six hours of Six Feet Under on Bravo when that was on. My point it, I think, for advertisers, networks try to establish a brand name, and brand loyalty among viewers, just like Coke, Budweiser, Ford. Basic cable succeeds partly through lower expectations. If they throw me a bone, like South Park or Sarah Silverman, or if a channel I never watch, like CMT, shows the Dallas Cheerleader tryouts, I’m grateful, but it doesn’t occur to me to be loyal to any given channel or that any given channel is indispensible. When I add it all up, I may watch four hours of TV a day, and its almost 100% basic cable. It’s like death by a thousand cuts, or ants carrying grains of sand and building an antheap. It adds up. And even more to the point, the networks, with the possible exception of FOX, are way too predictable. CBS: cop show, cop show, cop show. ABC: yuppies in love, yuppies out of lovc, yuppies in love again. I’m not ready for the rest home yet. Bottom line: even when they’re good, the networks are dull and predictable.
Those numbers are an eye-opener. They are somewhat surprising until I think about how I watch TV. Beating boredom is the key for me, more than being enlightened or even all that entertained. To me pay cable is like a smorgasbord. I may watch an episode of a silly tween show like ” Greeks,” honestly just to look at the beautiful young women. Then I may never watch it again. I enjoy even the edited version of Sopranos on A&E, since I missed out on the first three seasons. I watched six hours of Six Feet Under on Bravo when that was on. My point it, I think, for advertisers, networks try to establish a brand name, and brand loyalty among viewers, just like Coke, Budweiser, Ford. Basic cable succeeds partly through lower expectations. If they throw me a bone, like South Park or Sarah Silverman, or if a channel I never watch, like CMT, shows the Dallas Cheerleader tryouts, I'm grateful, but it doesn't occur to me to be loyal to any given channel or that any given channel is indispensible. When I add it all up, I may watch four hours of TV a day, and its almost 100% basic cable. It's like death by a thousand cuts, or ants carrying grains of sand and building an antheap. It adds up. And even more to the point, the networks, with the possible exception of FOX, are way too predictable. CBS: cop show, cop show, cop show. ABC: yuppies in love, yuppies out of lovc, yuppies in love again. I'm not ready for the rest home yet. Bottom line: even when they're good, the networks are dull and predictable.
Those numbers are an eye-opener. They are somewhat surprising until I think about how I watch TV. Beating boredom is the key for me, more than being enlightened or even all that entertained. To me pay cable is like a smorgasbord. I may watch an episode of a silly tween show like ” Greeks,” honestly just to look at the beautiful young women. Then I may never watch it again. I enjoy even the edited version of Sopranos on A&E, since I missed out on the first three seasons. I watched six hours of Six Feet Under on Bravo when that was on. My point it, I think, for advertisers, networks try to establish a brand name, and brand loyalty among viewers, just like Coke, Budweiser, Ford. Basic cable succeeds partly through lower expectations. If they throw me a bone, like South Park or Sarah Silverman, or if a channel I never watch, like CMT, shows the Dallas Cheerleader tryouts, I'm grateful, but it doesn't occur to me to be loyal to any given channel or that any given channel is indispensible. When I add it all up, I may watch four hours of TV a day, and its almost 100% basic cable. It's like death by a thousand cuts, or ants carrying grains of sand and building an antheap. It adds up. And even more to the point, the networks, with the possible exception of FOX, are way too predictable. CBS: cop show, cop show, cop show. ABC: yuppies in love, yuppies out of lovc, yuppies in love again. I'm not ready for the rest home yet. Bottom line: even when they're good, the networks are dull and predictable.
I dont watch as many TV shows regularly as I did back in the 80s and early 90s during HS and College. I used to watch tons of prime time programming. Now its pretty much down to LOST and “24″ and a handful of sitcoms and dramas I watch sporadically. Part of the reason is content overload. The old “100 channels and nothing on” thing. Half the time I just use my new LCD TV’s QAM digital tuner to check out what my neighbors are watching on Comcasts ON Demand (only have analog cable, but I can freeload OnDemand because its not scrambled). Caught I AM LEGEND the other night (this time whoever ordered it watched the whole thing).
I dont watch as many TV shows regularly as I did back in the 80s and early 90s during HS and College. I used to watch tons of prime time programming. Now its pretty much down to LOST and “24″ and a handful of sitcoms and dramas I watch sporadically. Part of the reason is content overload. The old “100 channels and nothing on” thing. Half the time I just use my new LCD TV's QAM digital tuner to check out what my neighbors are watching on Comcasts ON Demand (only have analog cable, but I can freeload OnDemand because its not scrambled). Caught I AM LEGEND the other night (this time whoever ordered it watched the whole thing).
I dont watch as many TV shows regularly as I did back in the 80s and early 90s during HS and College. I used to watch tons of prime time programming. Now its pretty much down to LOST and “24″ and a handful of sitcoms and dramas I watch sporadically. Part of the reason is content overload. The old “100 channels and nothing on” thing. Half the time I just use my new LCD TV's QAM digital tuner to check out what my neighbors are watching on Comcasts ON Demand (only have analog cable, but I can freeload OnDemand because its not scrambled). Caught I AM LEGEND the other night (this time whoever ordered it watched the whole thing).