Slashdot Mirror
Nielsen Ratings in the Age of the Internet
alphadogg writes "If everyone started watching '24' or 'CSI' on video iPods or streamed over the Internet — instead of on TV in their living rooms — these top-rated shows would probably go the way of 'Cop Rock.' This is because Nielsen Media Research cannot collect data about what people watch on handheld video-viewing gadgets or from PCs streaming network TV shows. While Nielsen estimates around 90% of TV viewing still happens in homes, it's this burgeoning 10% that TV networks and advertisers are desperate to delve into." Note that this story is obnoxiously spanning 6 pages. For a publication named "Network World" you'd think they'd know better.
if everyone watches them on iPods and what not, they'll be paying for them with cash instead of advertising...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Am I the only one who is sick and utterly tired of stupid cop shows where the cops are all suave and have an attitude and go around like they are some hot shit or something. Theres like a million shows like that. Is that really what people want to watch? Police officers with an attitude pulling stuff out of their butt? In real life every police officer that doesn't stand up and denounce marijuana prohibition is just a tool of Harry Anslinger any ways, nothing more than a racist scumbag raping our country for a paycheck. Do they really deserve an attitude like on all the hot cop shows? Screw TV, those shows are retarded.
Why would this be a problem to anyone other than people involved with the Nielsen Media Research firm? Their business model worked for ages, but it's becoming less and less relevant due to the technological environment.
Piracy aside, producers have a pretty good idea how many DVDs they're selling, how many people are hitting up their authorized web streams, and how many digital video purchases are being made over iTunes and whatnot.
I just don't think we are going to be living in an age where the content providers have to pay Nielsen to sell their own statistics back to them for much longer.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
They may have more reliable data on how many are watching these shows, but they may not necessarily have good data (if any) on who is watching these shows. Companies like to tailor advertisements to a particular demographic, and without that demographic information connected to a show, regardless of how well its doing, I imagine that advertisers would be somewhat reluctant to throw money at it.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
do you think the TV studio would really say pull the plug?
Hell yeah.
The advertisers will only pay if they know thier advertisments are being watched. If a studio or ratings mechanism can not prove the statistics of the viewers beyond a reasonable doubt to the advertisers, the money stops. If the money stops coming in, the shows stop going out.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Interesting the timing of this story, because I received my DirecTV bill yesterday, and see they tacked another $10 on out of the blue. The only time we watch TV is for specific shows (at the moment Battlestar Galactica, Lost and Survivor). We watched the previous 2 seasons of Lost (48 episodes) entirely from downloads off the internet, and we are now watching it "live" since we are caught up with the storyline. So on one hand, had we not been able to download and watch the older shows, we definitely would not be watching the new episodes live. So in that specific case "offline" viewing resulted in an increase in live viewing.
However, considering the cost increase at DirecTV, I'm now seriously considering completely pulling the plug on Satellite / Cable, and just downloading the shows we watch. They are usually available online within an hour or two of airtime. If the shows were available online for purchase, and if they were offered in a format that was conducive to what we want (ie no DRM), we would consider purchasing them. The total cost should still be less than our DirecTV.
Our kids watch more TV than we do, but I still download and burn shows for them to watch. For example, all the Invader Zim episodes, and just in the last few days they've really enjoyed the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons they've only just been introduced to.
So yeah, a change is coming, that's for sure. Right now this type of activity is limited to the more technical minded folks (for example, I download toons in DivX, and re-encode to MPEG1 VCD for the kids to view in the car - a pretty involved multi-step process to get the audio encoded in-synch). However, it won't be much longer until our parents will be doing this too. Recently I was surprised to visit my Aunt and Uncle (typical computer / www type users), to find them involved in an orgy of DVD burning. If they only knew of the availability of content on the net, and were instructed on how to get it to disc, they would certainly join in as well.
The moral is that the networks need to be as unlike the RIAA (and to some extent, the MPAA) as possible and get good (DRM-less), formal online access channels in place to their content ASAP before the general public switches to methods completely outside their control (aka no advertising or Nielsen tracking, etc).
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Exactly. It seems like they could get more information from downloads than from normal TV watching. In fact, normal TV watching is skewed even more by DVRs (although off-the-shelf models could still allow remote-monitoring, but with commercial-skip, it all goes out the window anyway).
What they can't detect (without some info from the remote device) is how many times the episode was watched. They definitely can't reliably(/automatically) detect is WHO watched it, thus demographics go out the window.
Of course, it's probably likely that the production studios get less per download than they get per viewer through advertising revenue. How that figures into things is an exercise left to the reader.
Of course it spans 6 pages. That way if you like the article - they get 6 ad views. Perfect for them
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
I cheered at first, too. But I cheer less and less with every episode I watch. It's just not the same as it was in the first and second seasons. It relies way too much on its established base of fans to find humor in its self-referencing jokes.
And most of [as] is turning into crap, too. How I long for the old days of Sealab 2021, ATHF, Home Movies, and SG:C2C instead of Squidbillies, Perfect Hair Forever, 12 Oz. Mouse, and Tom Goes to the Mayor. At least they started showing new Harvey Birdman episodes last night. Venture Bros. seems to be going strong, too.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Why do you still need the advertisers?
Think about it. Traditional TV is a indirect-funding system. Networks pay for TV shows to be made and sell advertising time during the airing of the shows. The typical viewer gets the show for "free" (modulo any cable/satellite costs). The expectation is that the advertising will translate into additional sales for the companies purchasing ads, thus justifying continued purchase of those ads.
Systems like the iTunes store provide a direct funding model between the consumer and the producer. Sure the sales aren't enough at this time to fund the show directly, but if they become great enough to pay the entire cost of the show, why should there be ads?
I think the true story is is Nielsen whining about *their* funding model going away. They make money by helping the networks set rates for their indirect-funding system. If that becomes irrelevant, Nielsen becomes irrelevant.
A couple of times in my life, I've participated in radio surveys. They sent me a green booklet, 8 1/2 x 5 1/2, with dates and times in (I think) 15-minute increments. I was expected to write down, for any time period, what (if any) radio station I listened to during that time -- at a minimum, either the call sign or station number, but there was room for both plus a description.
"At 8pm I watched Deal or No Deal on TV. At 9pm, I downloaded and watched The Simpsons on my computer. At 9:30pm, I watched Batman on my iPod."
Would this setup not solve the issue of watching shows on non-televisions?
--hymie!
Saying that Nielsen ""cannot collect data" on this is clearly false. Yes, it's true their automated data collection boxes can't get it.
But my household was chosen to be a one-month Nielsen family a couple of months ago, and they sent us a journal in which were asked (and payed) to log each TV show we watched on TV.
We thought this was particularly silly to only ask us to log what TV shows we saw on TV, rather than log every source of video we watched, from going out to the movies, to silly 1-minute clips on YouTube, to Amazon Fishbowl, to bittorrented TV shows, to movies or TV shows on DVD we checked out of the library.
As it happens, we hardly watch any TV, and we had company that week, it was a hot summer week and we don't have air conditioning, and it was summer reruns. We never once turned on the television that week. Although I actually didn't need those qualifiers, it's not uncommon for us not to turn on the TV all week. Most of the TV shows we watch, we watch on our computer on DVD's we get from the library. Which they didn't ask us to write down.
But it would have been just as easy for them if they had. Perhaps they won't get as accurate information if they ask people to keep their own journals instead of logging things automatically. But if they pay people well, and maybe even send out some largely automated electronic devices that allow people easily search for and click on what they watched (when possible), they can certainly still get this data. There was a "commentary" section, in which we got an opportunity to give them a piece of our minds about canceling Firefly.
There was a "commentary" section, in which we told them that most of the video we watch, including TV shows, is not broadcast TV. We also took the opportunity to give them a piece of our minds about canceling Firefly.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Plus product placement can still play a big role for advertisers even on iTunes, where there are no commercials. It would be interesting to see if product placement would work better on a generation if they weren't bombarded with ads all the time. Maybe they would notice the products more.
Of course product placement wouldn't work on a show like LOST, since all the products say Dharma.
Can I bum a sig?
Either way the studios need money coming in. Selling entertainment is no different then selling a physical widget. You make money from it and you can keep selling it. If the studios can produce a show and make enough money by selling it without advertisements, they will continue to do so.
There are many hurdles to ignoring traditional television though. Getting the initial audience is probably the biggest one. As it stands now, shows become "popular" by being in your face during or close to "prime time" spots. Once shows become popular and desired, the studios can expand the offering to direct paid downloads (with and without advertising), syndication, DVD of seasons, etc.. Becoming popular without the initial television spot and attempting to maintain a profit with only the secondary routes mentioned would be a significant risk. Maybe times will change or there will be a balance between the two.
Another point is the television advertising business model as well. Before the internet and banner ads, the advertising business had no real way to measure the impressions and effectiveness of blanket advertising. There are many assumptions and ad prices and time slots are based on nothing concrete. With direct downloads and feedback from internet based downloads, advertisers can get a better understanding of the effectiveness of their ads. This may cause a problem as some companies find out their ads may be useless and pull out much quicker then they would normally have using assumptions of effectiveness.
Bottom line, I agree that any show making money by any method will continue to be produced. How they will make that money is the tricky part.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
By selling info on what everyone is watching, when, and all those statistics.
Information is the commodity of the internet, it seems.
You still need the advertisers because iTunes as a venue works only when they have commercials for the shows they're selling. If the show isn't broadcast on TV, plus the myriad commercials advertising it on the other shows, they'll get far fewer downloads.
Attention is still the most valuable commodity on the Internet: the user's time is the limiting factor in everything you want to sell. TV shows are expensive, and they are only profitable if they get many, many viewers. Music can be made on the cheap, with only a few hundred in equipment plus the band and producer, and it can be done in a garage. TV shows require sets (hard to build in your back yard), plus makeup artists/gaffers/standby carpenters/etc.
This may all shift, slowly, if people start to lose their tolerance for commercials. There's a big discontinuity in the shift, for the first TV show advertised on broadcast TV but available only via iTunes. Meantime, there will be TV, and there will be advertisers, and there will be Nielsens. I'm glad the Nielsen corporation is cowering though. I can't wait until we can reclaim that bandwidth (I mean the stuff allocated for HDTV) from those useless bastards at the network affiliates.