Nielsen Adapting To Modern TV-Watching

Ant wrote to mention a C|Net story discussing fundamental changes in how the Nielsen company tracks viewership. From the article: "CNET says that the Nielsen company is finally taking one of several steps aimed at adapting to the new television/TV audience (those who use TiVo or another service to record prime time shows for viewing later) on December 26th, 2005. Ratings will be broken out by how shows are watched--live, later in the day or within a seven-day period. Over time, Nielsen will also move to measure viewing that takes place via iPods, cellular/cell phones, laptops, and other digital devices that are gaining TV privileges. The company also will track audiences for on-demand fare. The steps are a radical change for Nielsen, reflecting an overall paradigm shift that's shaking up the television world. The audience is taking control. And TV companies are scrambling to catch up."

Comments

Very interesting

[Andy Dodd]

I wonder if Nielsen will start monitoring BitTorrent trackers (not to bust people, but simply to measure popularity.)

I remember at one point, between the top two torrents of LOST, there were 5,000-10,000 seeders, 10-15k completes, and 20-30k people leeching within the first 12-24 hours.

Re:Very interesting

[Seumas]

Oh, great. So now they're going to have to report that "Bangbus episode 128 was the third most popular broadcast this week" . . .

Re:Very interesting

[zippthorne]

Interesting, but those execs would be shooting themselves in the foot. Advert $$ depends on ROI. (in the long term, the market will relax to this position, but in the short term, companies may actively be measuring and optimizing) So improperly measuring viewership is a fast road to losing all advertising dollars.

What I've been wondering though is why we have neilson anymore at all. With the advent of digital cable, it would seem to me that it's now possible to monitor directly the viewing habits of millions of people. That's a large sample. If made optional, i would even opt-in to just such monitoring, since it would mean that every time i watched my favorite shows i'd be casting a vote to keep it on the air.

Re:Very interesting

[nielsenite]

Is Nielsen interested in BT?

Short answer: Yes, no, and maybe.

(disclosure: I am a Nielsen employee based out of their GTIC facility in Florida. Beautiful place BTW.)

In the past, Nielsen has recorded time shifting as viewing. After all, why go through the trouble of setting your VCR to record a show if you're not going to watch it? And then TiVo had to mess it all up. It constantly records things you don't even ask for. Even if you do end up watching it eventually, it could be a week or a month later.

C|Net missed the real story here, which is how this turned the delicate balance of power between advertisers and content providers upside-down and how Nielsen's reinventing itself to keep time shifting from destroying the television industry. But that's OT.

Now there's Live, Live+SD, and Live+7 feeds as described in the article. The bad part about it is that practically overnight we have to process three times the data we did before, and our delivery windows were tight enough as it was. The good part about it is that we're no longer dependant on the tuner.

No TV? No problem! Here's your A/P meter. Now you can get your content from cable, DVRs, iPods, or *gasp* BitTorrent. It's not our business to know what you've recorded/downloaded/uploaded. It is our business to report on if you actually watch the darned thing (and then only if you've signed up as a Nielsen Home).

That said, we're not quite there yet. Right now we're focused on DVRs, but with this shift in our business makes the rest of it possible.

Re:Very interesting

[slashname3]

With cable companies and dish networks pushing DVRs how are companies using Neilson since many of those DVRs allow users to skip over commercials? Personally I have been using MythTV for almost a year now. I never watch live TV anymore and as a result I see very few commercials. If I understand correctly broadcasters use Neilson ratings to set the price of commercials on different shows. With DVRs becoming more common allowing more people to skip commercials won't this make Neilson ratings useless and ultimately cause advertisers to reduce spending since they are not really reaching as many people as are watching the shows. And by

The scary part of all this is that recently there has been talk about letting cable companies offer channels ala cart. I figure this will eventual evolve into user paid support for channels and ultimately into users paying for each show directly. This should result in commercials getting dropped from shows supported in this method. But this will lead to commercial placements directly in the shows.

I did the Nielson ratings for five years...

[mark-t]

And the only thing they didn't know about my tv watching was exactly what I was watching if I was just playing a tape. But they sure knew which programs I had recorded for later viewing. It was one of the many subjects that came up during the orientation.

This could change everything...

[mr_zorg]

Hooray! I've been one of the new Nielsen TiVo households for about a year now and I'm thrilled to see them finally starting to break things out this way. The best part is it's easy, I don't have to do anything different, they just collect the data from TiVo. Finally shows like Mythbusters, Iron Chef, etc., might finally get some respect!

What about those of us on Usenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

TV pirates are people too.

Re:What about those of us on Usenet?

[Dwedit]

The rules of usenet:
1st RULE: You do not talk about usenet.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about usenet.

One other thing I thought of

[Andy Dodd]

Imagine what would happen if ISPs started supporting IP multicast. It would allow media content to be distributed MUCH more easily. I recall someone claiming that BitTorrent was now consisting of 25-50% of Internet backbone traffic - Imagine how much that could be reduced if multicast were used, given that probably 90% of that 25-50% are duplicate packets, if not more.

Unfortunately, we may not ever see IP multicast in its present form on the backbone. It requires too much additional memory in routers, and I have yet to see ANY information on how to find a free multicast address and reserve it for use. It's simply too hard for the average programmer/user to use.

I saw a couple of links to a Japanese multicast project known as Xcast, which would simply put multiple destination IP addresses in a packet, while it isn't as scalable as IP multicast, it's a hell of a lot easier to use. Unfortunately, since it isn't quite standardized yet, it's basically only supported on a handful of test networks, and I wouldn't be surprised if it stays that way.

In this day and age of mass media distribution, some form of multicast, even a limited one that only allows 8-16 destinations per packet, is desperately needed - so why the hell is there still no viable solution?

Re:One other thing I thought of

[Andy Dodd]

Multicast is at a lower layer than UDP and TCP, but due to the nature of multicast, it will not actually work with TCP, only with connectionless protocols such as UDP.

You're correct in that dropped packets would cause a problem for BT, since everyone needs the entire file. That said, if a client even received only 50% of a file via multicast, that would be 50% less that would eventually need to be handled via unicast, or via another multicast transmission. In reality, probably most clients would get 80% or more of the data in the first multicast go-around, and probably could get close to 95% or so after two full rounds of multicast. Eventually a unicast fallback or multicast rebroadcasts would be needed, but even with quite a bit of fallback to unicast or multicast rebroadcasting, far less data would need to be transmitted overall.

For example, suppose 100 clients downloaded a file. Those 100 clients only maintain a share ratio of 0.1:1. With multicast, the system would still perform extremely well, as even with 50% packet loss, each client would receive on average 5 complete copies of the data. (Of course, there is a nonzero probability that someone would still have a few holes, but those holes would be quite small.) In the current system with unicast, even if the clients maintain a 1:1 share ratio (counting retransmissions due to losses towards the client's upload), each client would wind up receiving less than a full copy - a share ratio higher than 1:1 is required for the system not to break.

It's about time!

[PurifyYourMind]

I always doubted the reliability of Nielsen ratings, especially given the cancellation of so many great shows (e.g. Family Guy.. for awhile anyway). Moreover, I have never, ever known anyone who's been in a so-called "Nielsen family". I guess my friends and I aren't average enough to make it into the sampling demographic.

One reason advertisers loved the web (at first, at least) was because it's possible to get exact numbers of "viewers", know what viewers are doing (clicking through, clicking then ordering, etc.), and not miss any viewers simply because they didn't get lucky enough to be sampled. I can't imagine being an advertiser trying to track my television ad results... what, survey everyone who walks in my store?

Fantastic!

[Anonymous Coward]

With respect to television usage, which is pretty much just ambient/background news stream, and not internet usage, I've wanted for the longest time for my provider to track not just my "usage" (customer watched show X on channel Y at time Z), but my NON-usage (customer was watching show X on channel Y and CHANGED channels at time Z, and returned or did not return).

Why? So they can match that with my desire to avoid StupidShit (tm). At times I'll bounce from CNN to Fox to MSNBC to Bloomberg when the same stupid commercial is played for the ninth time that hour.

Heh, " To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image:" ... the word? Itches. Yes, yes it does.

Re:Fantastic!

[penttan]

Dislcaimer: I work for a company that does television audience measurement (in Europe). In most countries the viewing data is collected by a peoplemeter device installed at the panel household's tv set. It automatically identifies the channel and can measure viewing behaviour second by second, although one minute is usually the smallest reported time. This kind of data makes analyzing all the things you mentioned (and much more) possible. For example, the gain and loss analysis of a program shows minute by minute chart of where the viewers are coming from (from another channel or just turned tv on) and where they are going. There are several software products that are used to analyze TV viewing data and the TV companies do use them. If the data is collected using diaries where the smallest reported time may be 5 or 15 minutes, this kind of analysis is more difficult. I believe that diaries are still used at some parts of USA.

...what?

[greyjoy]

The steps are a radical change for Nielsen, reflecting an overall paradigm shift that's shaking up the television world. The audience is taking control. And TV companies are scrambling to catch up.

This reflects a change in how Nielson's gathering statistics, nothing more, nothing less. What paradigm shift? What control over television companies does the audience have now that they didn't have before? It's always nice to give voice to wishful thinking, but, c'mon, at least let your excuse have some relevance to your fantasies.

Also, I hope they take into account that most people who have videos on their iPods will overwhelmingly be well-off white people. I'm sure they're a valuable population statistic, but please don't let their viewing habits have too much weight in the overall viewing summary. I don't want every network to be (more) stacked with Dharma and Greg clones...

Nielsen? Still needed?

[dada21]

One of my employees is a Nielsen viewer. I can't believe those guys are still going to keep ticking.

With video watching moving towards an on-demand basis, will advertisers really need to hire a company to track viewer preferences? The best thing advertisers can do is replac Tivo/MCE/Myth/whatever with completely free tuner/PVR units. Tivo can already tell advertisers what commercials were watched or skipped, what parts of a TV show were paused or reviewed, what channels are bounced between most often, etc. As TV becomes quickly available through iTunes or direct download, IPTV, and other "right now" provisions, we'll see our information traded in exchange for free TV.

I still believe that TV show production companies will find ways to offer advertising and spyware-free shows (a la the DVD format) for those willing to pay extra. Remember, advertising only exists for shows that are being watched in real time. Video taping, downloading, PVR, whatever means ads will likely be skipped or deleted altogether. We will definitely see more product placement as well as more pop-up advertising on top of TV shows as time goes on. Technology is quickly destroying the efficacy of advertising, so advertising will either have to morph or be left in the dust.

Nielsen, IMHO, is already being put into the incinerator. Their services were nice (*pat on head*) but its time for the new kid to play.

I remember...

[evil agent]

When I was just a little kid and I thought that just by tuning in to a show I would be increasing their ratings. Ah, the innocence/ignorance of youth... Please tell me I wasn't the only one!!

Re:Stop stretching shows

[Professor_UNIX]

Maybe, just maybe this will help end the new era of TV stations stretching their shows one (or like Cold Case, several) minutes later than their scheduled run time.

Cold Case doesn't run long because the show is more than 1 hour long, Cold Case runs because of the god damn football games running long, then that pushes 60 Minutes back and then Cold Case can start anywhere from 5-45 minutes late. I wrote a letter to CBS about this idiotic schedule they have but I of course received no response.. why would I? They don't care about DVR users since we don't watch their commercials. Other stations that usually play NFL football games either do (or used to at least) put crap shows for about an hour after a football game was scheduled to end so that if the game went longer than the time allotted they could cut into the show.

What I've had to resort to doing is setting Cold Case to record for an extra 60 minutes to ensure I catch the ending, but this in turn conflicts with other shows I want to record in the 9pm hour on Sunday (Desperate Housewives, Law and Order, etc.). Since I've only got two tuners in my PVR right now I need to decide which I don't get to watch because CBS's incompetent fall schedule. Soon I'll be adding a third and fourth tuner to the MythTV box so this will become less of an issue, but it still leaves me with a 2 hour recording block for a 1 hour show just because they can't nail down their time slots.

Please?

[Rydia]

Can we please restrain ourselves from ridiculously superficial overgeneralizations in articles? The article submission was great until the last sentences... "The audience is taking control. And TV companies are scrambling to catch up." In addition to being gramatically incorrect, is both inaccurate and perjurative to the whole submission, ruining what should have been a pretty interesting intro to an article about a shift in Nielsen's ratings, which is pretty interesting and somewhat important stuff. Is the audience really taking control? Because we can time-shift? We can do that with VCRs. Because we can do things with live television? Kind of, but, again, you could do something similar with a VCR. Are the TV companies scrambling to catch up? Nielsen is changing their methodology because these gadgets are leading to UNDER-reporting of audiences, so doesn't that indicate that they're not doing so badly after all?

There's been a rash of this lately, too... The online dictionary and "finally someone realizes that language evolves" is another egregious and recent one. If you want to comment on the story, comment in the comments. Just report the story in the submission. Saves us from reading something that is often stupid and taints the whole discussion from the get-go.

Stop announcing the measurement days

[jonsmirl]

I wish Nielson could figure out that pre-announcing the date of US sweeps week ruins TV viewing. For one week out of the year every channel simultaneously has great programming. Then for the other fifty one weeks it sucks. Advertisers are stupid for believing that sweeps week is at all representative of viewing patterns. Imagine how advertising rates would have been set if 9/11 had happened during sweeps week - cable news would have had top share.

MythTV disqualified me

[mmontour]

Earlier this year I was invited to become a Nielsen viewer (in Canada). The first problem was that I did not have a telephone landline, and their box needed one in order to phone home with its data. They initially said there was nothing they could do, but a couple of months later they called back and offered to pay for the landline if I had one installed.

They then asked for details about my TVs and such, down to the brands and model numbers. This is becuase they had to hook up monitoring equipment to measure the channel selected by the tuner, whether the VCR was playing or recording, etc. Everything was OK until we got to my MythTV box (with PVR-350 card). They could not monitor it properly, so we had to call the whole thing off. The technician (who was quite impressed with what MythTV could do) said that they might have ways to monitor such setups in the future, but he wasn't sure about it.

Oh well..

[Presidential]

Too damn late for Farscape or Futurama...

Out of control

[Columcille]

The steps are a radical change for Nielsen, reflecting an overall paradigm shift that's shaking up the television world. The audience is taking control. And TV companies are scrambling to catch up."

This isn't a paradigm shift, it's expansion of technology. Media entertainment is still media entertainment and people still watch it to be entertained. The ways people can access that media have expanded, but there has been no overall shift as a result.

Also, audiences aren't taking control. These extensions of media access are tickling media providers to death. Even Tivo, while cutting out advertising, reflects the audience demand for More! More! The problems Tivo presents to a media provider are only temporary. Media providers are recognizing the audience's unquenchable thirst for more! more! more! and they are finding ways to make even more money off of that thirst. It isn't victory of the audience, it's victory of the provider.

We shall not cease from exploitation.

[Leontes]

I was a Nielsen Television watcher for about year and a half, ending about a year ago. Instead of using my people meter while I watched television, I downloaded the shows to watch them on my computer. During this time, both Enterprise and Wonderfalls, shows I enjoyed immensely, were cancelled.

Although I drained the ratings , which would have been higher should I have actually physically watched the television, I felt it was important since I was representing those of us who had the technology to bypass television completely. I explained this to the Neilsen folks, and they weren't interested in my alternative viewing habits. Concurrently, I also downloaded and watched the first season of the apprentice, with it's integrated product placements. That exposure, from a rating point of view, possibly should have been counted, but there is no way of them measuring that. Even with this new system, they still won't count imbedded commercial watching. Microsoft, for example, paid a pretty penny to be included in the latest episode of the apprentice.

I'm glad Neilsen is finally catching up with technology. I suspect that ratings will shift pretty dramatically when DVRs are used primarily rate the shows. Commercial watching, however, will be seen as happening much less, which I suppose is appropriate since those of that can, do watch as few commercials as possible. Sadly, prefering to watch content and even being pretty unwilling to watch commercials may in the long run prevent content geared to those kinds of individuals from being created. No watching commercials = low ratings = not enough money to produce. Yet I still do everythign I can to limit down commercial watching as much as possible. I realize that may constitute copyright infringement, but I still enjoy the entertainment so much more without having to hear 'these important messages.'

Re:We shall not cease from exploitation.

[brxndxn]

You bastard!!! You got Enterprise cancelled!!!

Every dumbass knows that Nielson is just a stupid shallow representation of the idiots of the United States.. And, you, supposedly beeing a geek, should know that. You should've had your TV timer set to automatically turn the damn thing on during Enterprise and off after Enterprise.. It doesn't matter if you were watching it or not... You represented something like 1,000,000 geeks and you decided some random measurement that Neilson doesn't yet measure was more important.. Shame on you.

Why be a Nielson kiddie if you're not even going to do your TV watching or purposeful misrepresentation through the damn Nielson system? At least make it SEEM like you were a geek.. Instead, you made it seem like geeks are unmarketable through the current system (ya.. maybe so.. but who cares) and have no money to spend.. and they watch no shows. Thus, Nielson people can readily say, "Hey.. we need more stupid reality shows because smart people don't watch TV."

Ass. I hate you.

audiences taking control?

[Petrox]

Let's take a closer look at this breathless summary:

Nielsen will also move to measure viewing that takes place via iPods, cellular/cell phones, laptops, and other digital devices that are gaining TV privileges. The company also will track audiences for on-demand fare. The steps are a radical change for Nielsen, reflecting an overall paradigm shift that's shaking up the television world. The audience is taking control. And TV companies are scrambling to catch up.

If by "taking control" you mean "getting permission" then the only 'catching-up' going on here is in how quickly content-owners can implement acceptable (to them) access controls for the proliferation and fragmentation of potential TV-viewing media.