Comments on: ABC #1 on the Web, But People Spend More Time With Gossip Girl

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:42:05 +0000

Angie, yes and no. Certainly yes when comparing CW with less than one fourth the reach of either ABC or NBC. No, when comparing ABC to NBC. NBC has a slightly less foot traffic than ABC (according to HitWise — if you look at 4 other measurements you may find four different answers), but it has ~20% higher average time spent. The difference in engagement, if correct, is not insignificant.

And yes, the networks (at least CBS, I've seen them on record with it) are trying to claim all online viewing is additive. It suits them to do that, but I too am willing to be your 401K that it isn't!

By: angie

angie — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:34:44 +0000

Yes, Robert, but their advertising is still reaching fewer people if they have fewer overall foot traffic. No? I think the networks are also failing to take into account the fact that a lot of the viewership probably overlaps – they're treating online viewers like “new” viewers, but I'd bet my 401K that a large portion of them are people who watched it live and want to watch it again.

I guess I just think the whole system of advertising is as dumb as the shows airing on t.v. these days.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:30:06 +0000

Angie, let me explain why it matters.

More time = more engagement = more opportunity to put ads in front of your face = more advertising revenue.

If you go to NBC and watch a 2 minute clip of Heroes, you're not going to see much advertising. If you watch the whole ~45 minute show, you will see more advertising. But because of things like "Hulu isn't in this measurement" I don't know that it's truly a valid measure of engagement, but it's at least some data.

By: angie

angie — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:14:01 +0000

I don't understand why it matters how much time people spend on a website as opposed to the volume of traffic. I would think the actual volume of foot traffic would be more important than the one individual who spends a couple hours on the same site.

This is like the % timeshifted audience. Comparing each show's audience against other shows makes sense me to. Comparing a show to itself does not. I would think that at the end of the day it's not as important how many viewers Reaper gains via DVR, but how much that total amount of viewers compares to other shows in the same timeslot.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:15:28 +0000

Jake, it's a good question — Hulu doesn't count in this analysis and also wasn't there for a full year, but I think it's the best site for watching video (though agree ABC's is better for HD, once you've entered the 87,000 clicks necessary to watch LOST! )

Hulu also wasn't up the whole season so not fair to lump it in the stats, but my guess is its presence did hurt NBC's and FOX's ranking in *this* chart somewhat though Hulu's success is theirs as well so they probably don't mind.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:11:27 +0000

I wonder how Hulu stacks up? They have a good combinations of shows from all of NBC's properties and Fox. Aside from Hulu, I think ABC.com has the best video player. They also have every season of Lost!