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.
I've talked to a few people who've been involved in Nielsen ratings, and these were hardly normal people. One family basically only ever watched Charmed on TNT, and then an occasional news broadcast. They really need to start pulling more automated information.
In my home, I have Dish Network, with a dual-tuner DVR. So, I often end up watching two shows from the same timeslot. Yeah, I probably skip through commercials, but I doubt they are getting ratings for both shows at the same time.
The other thing with Nielsen is a failure to get really good demographics. I mean, if Nielsen had a clue, they wouldn't have yanked Family Guy and have to bring it back. They always look at numbers for total viewers, instead of demographics and loyalty. Some of the smaller shows that get yanked could actually charge more for better targetted advertising.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
It's done by either having a "random" group keep diaries, or by observing their TV set's channel settings via remote sensors. Saying they can't do the same thing for handhelds is ludicrous. At the very least, they could count the number of downloads. Duh.
Have you read my blog lately?
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.
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
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.
viewing diaries!
Boxes set up in people's homes cost money to make and money to install. It is far cheaper and easier to ask people to keep a simple diary of what they watch and then collect the diaries. I would'nt be surprised if the diaries are kept online now instead of in dead-tree editions in the home.
Hey, there's a great programming project!
Somebody hack Neilson to grab and distort the online diaries. >8^D Maybe we can get Star Trek: Enterprise back on the air. >8^P
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
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?
We were a Neilsen family for a while and I have no idea how they made sense of the data. Little to no sports, random shows late at night, no reality shows. Basically nothing that was particularly popular or current ( except maybe Letterman).
The 4 main family members (age, sex) were keyed in permanently, but guests had to be entered in when they were over. I always enjoyed keying friends in as 85 year old women, 3 year olds, etc. Of course we'd get sick of it and just leave the TV on a channel and wonder off. I can't imagine what they thought of an 85 year old women watching a Sailor Moon marathon.
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.
It is unaccurate and, as I understand it, everyone in the industry knows it.
Not only do they not measure internet viewing, but they don't measure dorm rooms where hundreds of thousands of college students live, or public viewing like sports bars which are packed full of people watching sports every weekend.
Not being able to measure viewing of downloaded shows isn't an entirely new problem, but just makes an existing problem worse.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players