53 Responses to “Is It A Good Thing That 90210, Gossip Girl & Dollhouse Get 40+% of Demo Viewing By DVR?”

1. Gavin says:

   April 20, 2009 at 10:09 pm

   TV networks need to wake up to a few facts.
   People are not always going to be home on the night to watch TV shows at the time of airing (will this change ? probably not) so cancelling a lot of good shows just because people aren’t there to watch them live is just plain stupid , some people have to allocate time in their lives to watch TV shows , either bacause they work long hours or have other commitments.
   So DVR viewing still shows people’s interest in shows whether they watch it when it airs or later , there’s not a lot that can be done about advertising loses due to these factors , perhaps the best option under these circumstances is to find other ways to make revenue to balance out the loss ? I mean lets face it , if people have other commitments they can’t just put their lives on hold to watch TV live , that’s just being unrealistic.
   Hope this comment might wake up some people’s ideas and start saving some really good shows rather than being cancelled for circumstances that just can’t be changed , and hopefully networks will start looking at ways to balance out revenue in other ways.
2. the128boy says:

   April 20, 2009 at 10:20 pm

   By my count 7 of the top 20 18-49 dvr increased shows are either toast or on the bubble. Very interesting.
3. miranda says:

   April 20, 2009 at 10:42 pm

   At least overall 18-49 didn’t suffer a drop for DH this week.

   I think knowing the actual itunes or Hulu numbers would be good, because they are more likely to make money than DVR. But unless those numbers are 10-20x the normal of 20k, it’s unlikely to make a difference
4. Nick C says:

   April 20, 2009 at 10:57 pm

   I’d say that Friday scripted shows seem to be DVRed a lot, but the CBS shows aren’t on the lists ever.
5. Robert Seidman says:

   April 20, 2009 at 11:37 pm

   Nick, in weeks where both Dollhouse and Ghost Whisperer are not repeats, Ghost Whisperer has more total DVR viewing (1.882M to 1.524M for the week of March 9-15, for example). You don’t see it on the list for DVR viewing but if % increase lists weren’t produced, you wouldn’t see any of the FOX shows on Friday either.

   to the128’s point, if you throw in the CW shows (and they aren’t on the bubble or toast) the % increase list is mostly (though not exclusively) a list of shows with low overall viewing that have disproportionately high DVR viewing. but still, low overall viewing.

   It seems much better to be CBS and not have very many of your shows show up on the % increase lists.
6. hagi says:

   April 20, 2009 at 11:49 pm

   thanks for data..
7. Drone391 says:

   April 21, 2009 at 12:10 am

   Why did ABC cancel Boston Legal, any scoop or opinion on that, were its numbers too low?
8. Dave says:

   April 21, 2009 at 12:19 am

   How many people who watch shows live actually even watch the commercials? Everyone I know just mutes the TV or swaps the channel during ads. Yet these people are considered to be “watching” the ads, while the DVR community is not, it’s very confusing.
9. Jesse says:

   April 21, 2009 at 12:26 am

   *Looks at picture*

   Soooo. Ugly people just don’t exist in the CW universe, do they?
10. Mike says:

    April 21, 2009 at 12:34 am

    “*Looks at picture*

    Soooo. Ugly people just don’t exist in the CW universe, do they?”

    Ha, true. Though compared to the Gossip Girl cast, 90210 looks ugly.
11. Robert Seidman says:

    April 21, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Dave, I can’t answer your question about how many people watch live. But I can sort of clarify the data.

    Live = the total number of minutes viewing the program (and the programs commercials) divided by the number of minutes in the show. Changing channels would be subtracted from a shows minutes and not included in the show’s numbers. According to Nielsen it treats the DVR viewing the same way — if you fast forward past commercials, those minutes aren’t counted. Since most people forward through commercials most of the time, as a result the total number of people actually watching a program on DVR are higher than what we report. If I fast forward through all the commercials and credits I’d be counted as ~2/3rds of a viewer rather than a full viewer.

    Advertisers use numbers we don’t have access to called C3 ratings. They measure the actual commercial viewing for shows including up to 3 days of DVR viewing.
12. Cruel_Heartless says:

    April 21, 2009 at 12:41 am

    At the moment DVRs mean very little. Honestly when you have recorded something, who watches the adverts?

    All this post can be used for is for Dawn to crow about how many inconsequential people watch 90210. You know the people that don’t contribute all that much to CW’s profits and it’s advertisers.

    Whilst it is impressive and shows that these shows are actually watched and people enjoy them it highlights that at the moment they just aren’t as profitable as the shows that do well on tv both viewer wise and demo wise.
13. NN says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:09 am

    As long as network execs still believes that their main business is selling eyeballs in a specific timeslot then yes DVR numbers doesn’t mean much. On the other hand when the business and advertisers comes to grips with the tv anywhere anytime concept and DVR, Hulu and internet numbers gets aggregated into some kind of # of total viewers then maybe. We probably need some years with decreasing network and C3 numbers and increasing DVR and internet viewing for the advertisers to realize that if they want to reach the audience they’re looking for they really have to go where the audience is (as someone smarter than me said ) and look beyond the network C3 numbers, whether the right audience is using DVR, internet or watching on the phone. And where the advertisers go the networks decisionmakers are sure to follow.
14. Christian Seehausen says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:15 am

    Wait, so Robert, if that’s the case, and minutes fast-forwarded are not counted in the rating, why is DVR still considered so much worse than Live viewing? Is it assumed that the NUMBER of people skipping those minutes is vastly disproportionate to the number of people who change the channel, or worse, leave it running while they get up and do something else?
15. stevo999 says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:15 am

    I think dvr viewing proves that these shows are popular so the networks can order another season but put it in a different time slot. also if they put product logos in the corner like their network logos then dvr viewing would have advertising potential
16. Laura says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:37 am

    I was reading about all the commercial drama. I understand what you, Robert, are saying about counting the minutes and such… but, advertisers have to know that even if someone is “watching” the commercials that doesn’t really mean they are watching them. If I am actually watching a live show, which I hate doing these days because of commercials, and a commercial comes on, that is my bathroom break or grab something to eat in the kitchen or something to that effect. I agree with everyone else that DVR viewing proves that the show is successful. With so many GREAT shows on these days you have to DVR some of them since they usually come on at the same time.
17. Robert Seidman says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:40 am

    Christian, no real conclusions about the relative value of DVR viewers versus live viewers from a commercial viewing perspective can’t be seen directly from this data.

    This data measures total minutes of program viewing/divided by the shows duration (and if it’s an hour long show, divided by 60). The total program viewing minutes include any viewing of programs and commercials, but do not include changing the channel or fast-fowarding. So, I can’t look at the data above in the absence of other data and make any conclusions about commercial viewing.

    However, triangulated against the limited commercial viewing data and analysis that we have seen it appears that most commercial viewing that happens, happens live. While DVR does improve the commercial viewing some, all the data we’ve seen suggested that most people forward through commercials most of the time. That’s not the same as saying all people bypass all commercials all the time.

    What we can know for sure from this data is total program viewing increased by 44% for 90210 with DVR viewing. All the data we have seen suggests that while program viewing went up a LOT, commercial viewing definitely does not increase by that amount and is probably more in the neighborhood of 10% or less commercial viewing increases. Unfortunately, the data above doesn’t really say anything about commercial viewing.
18. Mike says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:56 am

    I think what this shows is that new media models need to be embraced. I have several computer media centers set up that record most shows. I do not need to worry about being home or tuned in as I can watch when I want.

    I do not watch advertising either Live or recorded. When I watch TV I do not watch commercials. I usually flip to CNN/Weather or other news channel during the commercials.

    I would watch more TV off the computer but so much content is restricted from viewing in Canada such as Hulu.

    Of course same with the ads on the computer video. The minute an ad comes on I switch to another window and then come back once the commercial is over or many times just forget about even watching the news clip.

    I rarely download content off the internet but would watch it if it can be streamed.

    I also have Linux boxes that I use to bypass the content restriction on viewing recorded TV as I have a 4 tuner machine that records it all but watch the majority of the TV in the Bedroom on another machine.

    I personally feel that what needs to happen is that product placement needs to be integrated into the media as opposed to putting it by itself. The old commercial based Television program is going to have to change to survive.

    Of course I am getting sick and tired of starting to watch a show only to have it canceled. I am considering removing the NBC channels off the TV as they seem to be the worst at this.

    Of the 50 channels on the TV I would say I watch less than 10 of them. We need to go to more of a specific content model in order to succeed. When I pay my monthly bill it should go to support the shows that I watch not all the rest of the crap.
19. Chris the TV Sage says:

    April 21, 2009 at 3:27 am

    Mike:

    And when everyone else stops funding the shows you like because they think *they’re* crap, what are you going to do?
20. Dario says:

    April 21, 2009 at 4:29 am

    Heroes are doing very well!
21. S. says:

    April 21, 2009 at 4:39 am

    If with the Live+7 day demo is still under 2 it just makes it easier to justify canning a show no matter what % is not watching live.
22. Julia says:

    April 21, 2009 at 5:45 am

    Damn, I was hoping you’d keep the lists like last week. Change in rank just seems like something that might actually matter (at least eventually) unlike percentage increase.
23. idizzle says:

    April 21, 2009 at 6:01 am

    Quite honestly I’d have a much easier time following the argument that DVR numbers prove TSCC and Dollhouse are successull, if DVR numbers would actually boost those shows into the, you know, successfull territory. As it stands Dollhouse seems to come out of 7 day viewing numbers with still under a 2 in the demo. That is not successull even if you do not consider how much ads are fast forwarded through and how much the Friday slack these shows get needs to be discounted then.

    All I could maybe see from this numbers is that Gossip Girl seems to have a slightly better claim to being slaughtered by the tough time slot than Chuck actually does.
24. bobbyboy says:

    April 21, 2009 at 6:13 am

    Hello to everybody, I’m a italian guy who watches a lot of american tv series. Before the internet we had to wait years to see (or never see) some series.Now the majority of young people here watch all the series via the internet with subtitles and obiouvsly without commercials. And so happens in all europe(world). When the shows air in italian television a lot of people have already seen them and won’t watch them again. I know you talk about the american market but I think a lot of americans do the same thing and watch the shows when they want.
    So,I dare say, why the networks don’t put commercials directly into the show?? They have many opportunities:computer,drinks,clothes etc. They would catch all the world customers eyes.
    I know it would be horrible aesthetically and for the verisimilitude, but I’d prefer to see Dr.House drink some Coca-cola than no Dr. House at all. IMHO.
    Thanks for the fantastic site by the way.
25. Mike says:

    April 21, 2009 at 6:21 am

    For Chris: “And when everyone else stops funding the shows you like because they think *they’re* crap, what are you going to do?”

    I guess not watch them and that is much fairer than everyone paying to support crap.

    I regularly rent seasons of a show from my video store and would love to be able to do that on the computer but we cannot view many movies over the internet in Canada.

    If I could watch recent movies over the interneet I would and would watch much less scheduled programming.

    Heck if I could pay to watch the shows I like, about 10 of them and could watch them over the internet I would get rid of my cable all together.

    My point is that you need to fund shows either by what people are watching (cost accounting by shows) and by integrated product placement.
26. Seppy says:

    April 21, 2009 at 7:29 am

    Im wondering, if DVRs hurt a show because people can skip the ads, and the advertisers dont care about DVR numbers because of this, then why dont they simply put the ads in the show for shows that draw a large DVR audience? Like if one of the shows advertisers is, say, Ford, then just have the cast driving Fords. If Pepsi is a advertiser, show them opening a pepsi instead of showing some generic soda with a label that cant be read.

    This way there is nothing to skip, and DVR numbers would be taken more seriously by the advertisers. Also fans would get more of their shows. Right show a average 1 hour drama is only 42 minutes, give or take. By advertising in the show it should give another 10 minutes to the show. I would guess they will still have regualar commercials at the start of the show and the 1/2 hour break, which is OK since people usually go to the bathroom or grab a drink.

    Im sure im not the first to think of this, so there must be a reason they havent done it. It seems a simple solution so what am i missing?
27. Patrick Murphy says:

    April 21, 2009 at 7:35 am

    bobbyboy says:
    April 21st, 2009 at 6:13 am
    Hello to everybody, I’m a italian guy who watches a lot of american tv series. Before the internet we had to wait years to see (or never see) some series.Now the majority of young people here watch all the series via the internet with subtitles and obiouvsly without commercials. And so happens in all europe(world). When the shows air in italian television a lot of people have already seen them and won’t watch them again. I know you talk about the american market but I think a lot of americans do the same thing and watch the shows when they want.
    So,I dare say, why the networks don’t put commercials directly into the show?? They have many opportunities:computer,drinks,clothes etc. They would catch all the world customers eyes.
    I know it would be horrible aesthetically and for the verisimilitude, but I’d prefer to see Dr.House drink some Coca-cola than no Dr. House at all. IMHO.
    Thanks for the fantastic site by the way.

    It is a good site, isn’t it? But to answer your question: product placement does happen in American TV shows. However, since Americans are subjected to 1/3 of every hour being a commercial (a number that has grown over the last 25 years), we tend to get a little ticked off when they put the commercial right in the middle of the show. Minor ones, like a Sony Vaio laptop or someone using an iPhone may not be a big deal. However, when someone walks in carrying a whole trayload of Subway sandwiches extolling the virtues of the “$5 footlong,” or has a meeting with a Nationwide Insurance agent during the show, that tends to annoy the average American viewer.

    I agree that House drinking Coke is better than no House at all. But at this point, the vast majority of Americans still get their shows through the TV, live, and we have to tolerate those ads.
28. idizzle says:

    April 21, 2009 at 7:53 am

    “So,I dare say, why the networks don’t put commercials directly into the show?? They have many opportunities:computer,drinks,clothes etc. They would catch all the world customers eyes.
    I know it would be horrible aesthetically and for the verisimilitude, but I’d prefer to see Dr.House drink some Coca-cola than no Dr. House at all. IMHO.”

    One downside I can think of off the top of my head is that in that extend this still doesn’t get international stations money. Even with worldwide products like Coca Cola would they really pay again to have the episode aired in say France? And that’s not touching on things that may not be translateable or time sensitive like a special price offer. So it would have a large impact on international sales and probably DVD sales (I’d certainly not be willing to pay the same for a DVD set that keeps citing the marvels of $5 sandwiches at me), which cut into the profits for the studio.

    Sure, it wouldn’t bother me much, if NCIS started using Fords or Charlie Harper began to drink Coors exclusively or Jack Bauer grabbed some Starbucks on the run, but to the extend that product placement paid for the show? Out of curiosity I’d really liked to see such an episode that completely paid for itself with product placement.
29. ded says:

    April 21, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Thanks for including links to good posts I previously missed.
30. JustTunedIn says:

    April 21, 2009 at 8:50 am

    Advertisements aren’t an ideal solution.

    Product placement isn’t an ideal solution.

    Subsription isn’t an ideal solution.

    Still it’s not the viewers fault for not liking the way the networks choose to make a business model. It’s their BUSINESS to find something that attracts viewers and makes money. It’s not the responsibility of viewers to sit through advertisements to help support the network (and without a Nielson box it doesn’t matter anyway).

    Maybe the problem is having networks at all. Why not get rid of the middle man and go directly to the content producers. That would cut out a chunk of the cost.
31. Bill Gorman says:

    April 21, 2009 at 8:51 am

    To Nick C’s question, it is very interesting that the CBS Friday shows are viewed on DVRs relatively less on a % basis, even compared with other CBS shows. I have no explanation for that.

    Every network’s younger viewers DVR view more than their older ones. 18-34 DVR viewing % > 18-49 DVR viewing % > Average viewership DVR viewing %. The regular data we see bears this out.

    That’s almost certainly the case for income demographics as well Higher Income viewers DVR viewing % > Lower income DVR viewing %. We have seen occasional reports of this, but don’t have any regular numbers for it.
32. Robert Seidman says:

    April 21, 2009 at 9:05 am

    Bill, The CBS Friday numbers for this particularly week made a lot of sense since Ghost Whisperer and Numb3rs were both repeats. When I looked at a recent week where there was no NCAA or repeats, the % increase due to DVR for Friday shows weren’t lower relative to other CBS shows.
33. Alex says:

    April 21, 2009 at 9:06 am

    I’m not sure I agree with the notion that the DVR viewing is on balance a bad thing for these shows but I don’t think it’s a particularly good thing for them either. The real problem that exists with DVR viewing is that its very hard to know how valuable DVR viewers are because whilst I suspect the majority do skip through the ads there’s no way to know how many did and didn’t. There’s also the studies that have suggested some people retain more of the ads when they view them at speed whilst skipping through them because they’re paying more attention (they don’t want to miss the show coming back from commercial).

    Until advertisers and networks agree on the value of DVR viewers its very hard to see them as important or not important.
34. Bill Gorman says:

    April 21, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Ah, good catch Robert on the CBS repeats. The missing explanation is often the simplest!
35. Bill Gorman says:

    April 21, 2009 at 9:17 am

    Alex, at least publicly, there currently is agreement on the value of DVR viewers. If you watch an average commercial minute within 3 days of airdate that creates advertising value, whether you watched it Live or on DVR.

    Now, that public agreement may be just window dressing (nobody’s emailing us the inside info), and it’s almost certainly subject to evolutionary change, but to say there is no agreement isn’t our understanding.
36. Joshua K. says:

    April 21, 2009 at 9:23 am

    I work evenings and don’t get home until around midnight each night, so ALL my TV watching is via DVR. Frankly, I think DVR viewers are probably more valuable than perhaps people may expect. Sure, we may fast forward through the commercials, but there have been plenty of times I’ve forgotten. Not to mention that even fast forwarding as quickly as possible, you still catch all the advertisers names. In the cases of “Dollhouse” and “Fringe,” I don’t even bother fast forwarding through those 60-second breaks because I nearly always overshoot and have to rewind again. It ends up being more convenient to just let the two commercials play and continue with the show than trying to skip them. The commercial breaks near the end (any that aren’t noted as 60 or 90 seconds) are fair game, though! I think the remote-free TV was a good idea not just for live viewers, but for DVR viewers as well. That’s my two cents.
37. ThePattern says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Here’s an interesting quote from Joss Whedon. Don’t forget Fox co-owns Hulu, so they profit when the show is downloaded on that site!

    http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/joss-whedon-what-it-will.php
    Have you heard anything official from Fox about when you’d hear about cancellation? Or have they told you if you hit a certain ratings number, that would be more favorable to a second season?

    Whedon: They haven’t said anything about a number, and they haven’t said anything about a date. What they have said is “We get it. We get that the numbers are soft, but it’s not a Nielsen world. The DVR numbers are good, and the show’s getting better, and the demographic is good, and we all have a crush on [star and producer] Eliza [Dushku].” So they’re basically fans.

    Obviously, there has to be a number we reach that is viable for them economically, or it would be senseless for them, unless they were insane fans like me. But they get it. They get the show, and they get what works. So they’re anxious for it to stay at a level where they can justify throwing down some more. Hopefully that’ll happen.
38. Bill W says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Hi Bill,

    Do you have the Reaper DVR numbers for the week? They have been averaging over 600k, but it looks like they must have had a big drop this week to not appear in the top 20.

    Thanks!
39. Richard Steven Hack says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    The problem with saying the Fox execs are fans is that they still have to make a business decision that keeps them employed by their board of directors and upper management.

    Which means they have to look at a show and decide whether it will trend down or up. If they can convince themselves it will trend up, it might make sense to order another 13 episodes and hold off on the back nine. If the reverse, to cancel it and opt for a newer show that at least holds the advantage of not already being a problem to be solved, but rather an opportunity.

    And if they order that 13 episodes, they need to at least have a decent argument that the expense will be more or less matched by advertisers to hand.

    I don’t envy them having to make that kind of risky decision. Tt’s obvious they should take into account factors like DVR viewing which might indicate a trend up or down, or whether the show has hidden advantages that might be worked on to convert more of those DVR viewers to live viewers.

    But in the end, the entire issue will still be money – not whether they’re fans.

    In this specific case, saying the demographic is good is probably the most important thing they said, along with Nick C’s statement that the show is actually profitable. The question they have to answer is whether the show will REMAIN profitable if they order another 13 episodes, or turn unprofitable. If the latter, it makes more sense to cancel and try a new show.
40. ThePattern says:

    April 21, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    But, according to Nick C., the show is profitable.
41. R.G. says:

    April 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Curious…if there’s little to no value of these charts for the networks –
    then why bother with them…???
42. Arguendo says:

    April 21, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Just as a reminder, the job of the network is not to find popular shows or to make viewer’s happy — it’s to make money. If they happen to make you happy, all the better. Regardless of whether advertising is more or less effective on DVR versus live TV, it also is not a question of what the networks know but what the advertisers do. Until advertisers are willing to cough up the money for DVR viewing, it makes very little difference to networks.

    The argument that high viewership on DVR might suggest a show is popular and therefore should be moved to another night is valid. Although, there is a possibility that the show’s fanbase just tends to be DVR-happy and therefore a shift to a new night doesn’t make it particularly valuable to keep (until advertisers change their ways). Indeed, shifting a Friday night show to, say Wednesday night might be killer as I catch up on my shows on weekends (which is in scope of the C+3 ratings for Friday shows, but not earlier) — I imagine many others do the same.
43. Capnbob says:

    April 21, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    @Seppy – did you just invent product placement? Wow – how could no-one have been doing this already – when someone in Bones last night said, “Your [Toyota] Sequoia is blocked in, let take the [Toyota] Matrix” that must have been just random serendipity for Toyota! You may have been being sarcastic… but I don’t think so.

    I watch exclusively by DVR (or by torrenting UK shows) and I used to be of the opinion that as I always skip the ads, I was a typical example of a zero revenue viewer. However, I have thought more about my habits and while not knowing how typical they might be, I’ve changed my opinion.
    I do recognize all the brands in the ads as I FFW at TiVo’s top speed – maybe not their specific messages, but the brands nonetheless. If something looks interesting, I stop and play it (usually movie trailers, but often ads). If I am multi-tasking, I often let the ads play rather than break what else I am doing, etc. I think I probably have better recall of the brands in an ad break because I didn’t hear all the crapola in the ads.
    I do view ads I like – Kylie, the 4.5yr old MicroSoft vampire (too cute for words), the Lincoln MKZ (great song), Mac vs. PC (funny), etc. and often view them repeatedly. BTW I will never own a Lincoln and I am an avowed Mac user so they’re not getting anything out of me anyway.

    Anyway – net net, I now consider myself a paid up member of the ad revenue generating viewing public – at least as much if not more so than a live viewer channel switching during the ads.
44. Mike says:

    April 22, 2009 at 4:42 am

    Interesting all the talk about fast forwarding through commercials, on my remote with a computer media center I push a button that advances 30 seconds at a time, so for Fringe 1 minute commercials, 2 clicks.

    Most standard commercial breaks are 3 or 4 minutes so 6 clicks or 8 clicks, If I over shoot I have a 10 second backtrack button.

    I never use the fast forward to skim through commercials.
45. Timstuff says:

    April 23, 2009 at 11:09 am

    I think that the fact that TSCC gets such a huge increase in viewership through DVR makes a strong case that the show belongs on a better night. The back 9 episodes of TSCC was an experiment by Fox to see if they could revive Sci-Fi Fridays, and it mostly failed. However, a lot of the viewers are still there, they just time shift. Add to that that there are many people who would likely be willing to come back to the show if they get the chance to catch up via summer reruns on cable or DVD, and I think we could easily get back up to where we were before the time change if Fox gives the show a better night.
46. JJ says:

    April 23, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    TSCC is looking impressive. I bet when the Born to Run numbers come out it will top the list.
47. Mari says:

    April 24, 2009 at 2:08 am

    You know I only watch shows on my computer. I just hate watching them om the tv because I never find what i want, even with tivo. On line you can watch anything anytieme. How is that going to afect stuff?
48. Mike K says:

    April 28, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Cruel-Heartless. Please tell me you’re kidding. I doubt I’m the only person who watches commercials in shows I record. They are the sponsors. I may not go out and BUY 3 Hummers, but I still like to know who is paying for the shows I like. Besides, sometimes they are quite clever.

    As far as whether or not a show is more profitable when it first airs, ever heard of Star Trek? It was cancelled you know…
49. save Sci Fi says:

    April 29, 2009 at 1:29 am

    Because I have five DVRs, I believe I can speak to something that so far I have not seen mentioned. On my Tivo when I attempt to skip a commercial I fast forward until it ends. This fast forwarding REQUIRES me to watch the screen carefully or I will go into the show before I can stop the Tivo. I honestly believe I give more attention to the commercials that if I was just watching the show live. My newer Directv DVRS skip the commercials so I do not see very much at all. The problem with this (the Direct DVRS) is I miss any good sales that a commercial might be announcing. I usually use the Tivo on the broadcast networks just to be aware of GOOD sales.

    The viewer ratings’ system cannot be accurate for all viewers. The industry is FOOLING itself if it thinks it really know anything about all the viewers.
50. TamTam says:

    May 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    I work nights so any show on any network at night is impossible to watch. I dont have a dvr so I watch on the shows webpage on weekends after my kids go to bed. I work with several thousand people and most of which…either DVR or view via internet thier favorite programs.