Comments on: TV Viewing still on the rise according to Nielsen

By: In Downturn, Internet Now More Important Than TV, Says Cable Operator | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:38:30 +0000

[...] now spend 142 hours a month watching TV. That’s up 5 hours from a year ago. By comparison, Nielsen says they only spend 27 [...]

By: WizReport » MobiTV Hits 5 Million Subscribers

WizReport » MobiTV Hits 5 Million Subscribers — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:46:06 +0000

[...] recent “Three Screen Report” found that mobile subscribers who watch mobile video spent 3 hours and 37 minutes per month watching [...]

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:24:35 +0000

clutz, I will save my (probably limited!) gunpowder for the post. Look for it later in the week.

By: clutz12001

clutz12001 — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:32:18 +0000

Bill, I figure you gentlemen saw the article already, as you and Robert are always on top of things in the trades! I hope broadcast networks not only survive, but find new ways to thrive. Does this mean more repeats of popular series, more sports in prime time, cutting out the 10 p.m. hour (like Fox)? Maybe. I have my doubts that repeating the mantra “People Still Watch TV” will fly much longer with advertisers,no matter how true the mantra may be.

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:57:57 +0000

clutz, I saw that Variety article and queued it up to write something about later this week when I might have more time. It’s the first time I think I’ve read something in the trade press, particularly Variety, that was pretty thoughtful on the future options of the broadcast television networks.

By: clutz12001

clutz12001 — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:47:23 +0000

Robert, I have the same general frustration with STB data plans. Although they have advantages in sample size and to-the-second data, these systems still are based on assumptions. When the set-top box is tuned in, it’s up to the data crunchers to assume who was watching – if anyone. Paper diaries (or online diaries) can be used to back up the data, obtain demographic information, and so on. But then we’re right back to the “zero cell” issue when panelists forget to complete their diaries.

Still, I think it’s in the Broadcast Networks’ and Nielsen’s best interest to convince people that their system is the only one that matters. I believe they’ll take any chance they get to calm the questions raised by advertisers regarding DVR, Web video, downloads, etc… I’m getting the “go away people, nothing to see here” vibe from Nielsen in particular.

The Nets and Nielsen need to keep people buying!
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996347.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:46:25 +0000

clutz, unfortunately without chips planted in the brain — or something that at least communicates directly with the brain, there is no way to easily know. Without it being possible to know, it’s pure speculation. I suspect you’re right, but there’s such a wide range of possibilities, what would matter is “to what degree are you right,” and without extensive and expensive research we’re not likely to find that out. The TV networks certainly won’t commission that study!

By: clutz12001

clutz12001 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:38:52 +0000

I’m in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. We do not have local people meters. They’re set to begin rolling those out in our market in 2009.

I guess I wasn’t referring to the 2 Internet video hours, more the 6 or so time-shifted hours. Example: I have my TV turned on 142 hours a month. I actually “watch” about 24 of those hours. Of the 24 hours I watch, 8 are time-shifted. I know I’m abnormal, but I’m still an example of a modern viewer .

I think it’s important to note that if the “same” six hours a month that are always time-shifte (e.g. Tuesdays at 10pm EST live timeslot) – that is probably more active participation in the viewing than, say, the 48 hours of live football and hockey per month.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:27:03 +0000

It’s just anecdotal evidence, so I don’t know if it’s universally true, but I can definitely understand why the local stations would be resistant to change even if it’s just a possibility.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:24:37 +0000

For whatever reason, the ratings plummet in local markets when they switch to People Meters.

that seems like a pretty big deal, whatever the cause. I’m surprised there isn’t more public uproar over it if it is more or less universally true.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:20:48 +0000

Actually, my math might be wrong on how many households contribute to the local ratings, but I’m pretty sure I’m right there. But it probably just depends on the market.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:17:04 +0000

Well, the sample size for the local ratings is larger than the sample size that contributes to the national ratings from that market. The expense involved in hooking up the local ratings sample is not necessarily worth it, especially since TV stations do not want to switch. My brother complained about it to me when his market switched two years ago, and I just spoke to someone last week who was complaining about Miami’s switch. For whatever reason, the ratings plummet in local markets when they switch to People Meters.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:57:18 +0000

since we only deal with national ratings here… I’ve seen no evidence that the diaries are impactful on the aggregate numbers at all.

But it’s surprising/interesting to me that Nielsen uses diaries for local markets *in* markets where there are people meters.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:51:53 +0000

Robert, outside of the metered markets, diaries are all that’s used. And even in metered markets they are often still used for local ratings. (Miami just switched over, and we’re in the top 20, so I imagine most of the markets between 56th and 17th are still using diaries.) But if you are referring to national ratings only, then, yes, you are correct.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:38:39 +0000

So long as it’s in the realm of 142 hours to TWO it’s not reasonable to discuss them in the same sense, regardless of how they are measured. The trends for that will be up for years to come, and on a percentage basis high for quite some time because the numbers are small.

Diaries are not used much for measurement these days outside of sweeps. Clutz, your bias against nielsen measurement is duly noted. but given the gap, even if 50% of the TV viewing time isn’t watched, it’s still not worth discussing Internet video viewing in the same breath as TV viewing. It’s just not very important yet (as a revenue stream).

By: clutz12001

clutz12001 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:33:58 +0000

The numbers aren’t as important as the trends, IMHO. Sure, people still watch TV more than the watch ‘net vid or mobile phone. But those percentage increases for time-shifting and ‘net viewing are pretty darn big.

For instance, as a Nielsen I may be counted as “watching TV” nearly 12 hours a day on Sundays. By “watch TV,” I mean the set is on, I’m checking game scores as I pass through en route to the grocery store, the laundry room, the kitchen, and so on….check the news at lunch, check the weather forecast, yadda yadda yadda. It’s even on as background while I surf the web. Are these “viewing hours?” Why, if I’m not really watching?

(BTW, we don’t have People Meters in my neck of the woods. Old-style meters and diaries would be used. I don’t know what buttons I’d have to push on the meter to validate that yes, I was watching. In a diary, I’d write that I watched the Steelers game even if I wasn’t enganged in viewing every minute of it.)