Slashdot Mirror
Nielsen Ratings To Count Online TV Viewing
cashman73 writes "Several sources are reporting that Nielsen is finally going to start measuring online TV viewing. You would think that this is a good idea, since many people are now watching TV programs on the Internet. However, there's a catch: Nielsen's new service will only count viewings of a program with the same number of advertisements as the network TV model. So, this immediately eliminates Hulu, as well as any shows watched via the network's own websites. As a matter of fact, it would currently only include Comcast's XFinity TV service, and TV Everywhere (which, so far, appears to be the equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever for television). So either, (a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely), or (b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu)."
I guess Conan should have had more commercials.
You would think that this is a good idea
I probably would, if I cared in the slightest about the subject.
...they count bittorrent views.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Why would hulu so badly want its content to count in Nielsen ratings that it would change its ad scheme?
Why do they insist on only measuring "full length" media. They will make themselves obsolete if they insist on measuring the way old media works. Related to that sentiment they forgot option "c," keep on ignoring the ratings and do what you like not what they want us to do.
After all, Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising. If the show you're watching doesn't have the same number of ads, then it's useless in terms of advertising sales as it's not apples to apples.
Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.
For those of us with no cable and using only digital OTA, Hulu (and other online sites) replace a DVR. And I think we'd be willing to sit through commercials.
Call me cheap, but I would, at least.
Into a trilobite, unfortunately.
It's inevitable really, since Neilsen's customers are advertising execs. Neilsen don't want to tell them that fewer and fewer people are seeing their ads, and the advertising execs definitely don't want that news getting out - that would be a strictly career limiting move.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Because then Nielson could put together a ratings list that shows ratings based on the amount of advertising. I won't lie, like most people one of the reasons I prefer watching TV through alternate means is to avoid the advertising. Yet I don't require zero advertising. There is a level of advertising that's more acceptable.
With this information, networks could find out how LESS advertising could generate more views. As a result, they could offer scaled advertising rates to advertisers based on the number of views. Which is exactly what the Nielson ratings are supposed to be doing now, except they totally ignore the big black hole of online content. This change, only measuring apples to apples comparisons and completely ignoring the oranges, just makes that big black hole slightly smaller. It doesn't serve the advertisers, it doesn't serve the viewers and it doesn't accept that there are new entertainment models.
Way to go, Nielsons!
Online viewers will not put up with the same quantity of ads as regular television (certainly not this viewer.) Hulu is just barely tolerable at 30 second spots. They've done the testing and research, they know what people will put up with. Nielsen Ratings are used to sell ad space, the better the rating, the more can be charged. If "Nielsen" won't rate online TV outlets, the internet TV "Industry" will come up with their own way of justifying ad sales. Point number one, fewer and shorter ads increase the probability that the viewers will actually watch them. Point number two, each viewer must request the view, making it much easier to accurately count and tie to demographics. Who needs Nielsen?
Why should Hulu add more commercials? If they are viable as it is, wht do they care for Neilson? Neilson is there to help sell ads by giving a value to TV shows. If Hulu doesn't need that many ads why should they annoy their viewers to help an unrelated service?
Duke Nukem actually got released which puts them ahead of TV Everywhere.
Or C, Hulu and other online outlets don't give a crap about Nielsen because Nielsen has no effect upon them, only upon the shows they carry. Networks care about nielsen because there is a cost involved in producing content, Hulu doesn't have that cost, Hulu has the cost of acquiring content which is paid for by ads. There is absolutely no benefit in them adding ads to their content just so Nielsen will use them in the rankings. So...there you go.
If they insist on it only mattering how much advertising you watch then shouldn't they be rating it as show per advertisement minute? It would even allow the studios to do interesting analysis like, is it worth it to have a 30-minute show that's only got 3 minutes of ads rather than the standard 8 since it increases viewership to unforeseen heights? (Not likely, actually, but still an interesting question.) Also, shouldn't they care about per ad-minute per ad as well? I mean, I figure there's some reinforcement value to watching the same advertisement twice but the same commercial three times in a row (it has happened when I still watched normal broadcast TV) when I've seen it 20 times that week probably doesn't help that much. Also, shouldn't the execs care that advertising on Hulu can be far more directed? For example, if I actually rate that I really liked the trailer for Movie X and actually go watch Movie X after seeing the trailer on Hulu it'd be cool if Hulu gave me more trailers for movies like Movie X (Netflix-style like here). And if I'm repeatedly marking down Product Y since it's a food in a category I don't eat can I please get not only no more adverts for Product Y but also no more product Y-2? I mean, we give them the perfect medium for directing advertising directly at as to maximize its effect and they just sneer at it. When will they learn?
Like it or not "free" television shows are advertising supported. Having a real way to measure how many people are watching online will finally give legitimacy to online advertising in streaming video and will help ad rates significantly. I know everyone likes free and hates advertising but in a medium like that there is no other way around it beyond pay per view or a wealthy benefactor who doesn't mind the idea of throwing away cash to entertain the masses.
There will be benefits to consumers as well, more will likely make their shows available online and time shifting not counting towards ratings will be less of an issue. This may actually help "save" shows in the future that had wide followings online and through tivo's but didn't reflect those audiences in ratings (Firefly or Dollhouse anyone?). It may also lead to a greater willingness to provide web only content.
I'm going to miss TV, at least a little bit. I calculated that if I connect my macMini to my TV, I can do practically everything I'm doing now with cable and Tivo -- but at $50 less per month.
There are a few drawbacks, of course. Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado, to name a couple. But I almost never watch sports, and the radio can suffice when it comes to severe weather. Ultimately, these things just aren't worth the $100+ per month that I'm paying for my "bundled" cable package.
Flopping down on the couch and turning on the TV to "see what's on" are going to become a thing of the past at my house.
If Nielson doesn't make some changes to their rating system, they'll become as redundant as TV.
Proverbs 21:19
Unlike traditional TV where you need ratings like Nielsen, to get advertisers, Hulu could just show the traffic that comes to their site.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
of mass media only profit from perceived returns. As long as the masses pay for their TV through satellite and cable services they remain content. As more and more move towards non traditional mediums they will devise defensive situations to corral the media hungry into their pens. It is basically a cattle herding effect. The more viewers they can prove, the more they demand for their ad space. My family and I have become rebels in that respect, as we have not had a paid television service in over 5 years. Unless you count online fees for internet access. All our television entertainment comes from Netflix, Hulu, and DVD rentals and purchases. When I share this with people they are stunned and aghast that we can even survive without paid TV in our homes. The day we cancelled our satellite, the operator called us liars when they asked what service we would be switching to. As our answer was that we would not have cable or satellite. It is beyond the average persons comprehension that you can survive with out paid TV. Try it you will like it was my answer. The added time and freedom of not being saddled with monthly payments for television is a gift that will repay you many times over. Buck the system dump the cable and satellite.
The real problem here is that the cost to distribute media are dropping very fast. Now consumers say that should mean the price they pay should also decrease. This ignores an important point, in economics price affects directly only demand and supply levels. Costs incurred by the producer only affects the amount he is willing to supply and the number of overall suppliers. Essentially the execs are looking at their lowering cost to distribute and asking "so what? the value to you has not changed has it?" Really due to the lower costs to distribute there should be more content providers increasing the content supply which is happening just most of it is crap. The cost to produce good media, if you want to call it that more or less crap with good special effects and the rare gem, is still very high making it hard to break into a market.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
So why doesn't someone (like me) come up with the "Smith Ratings" system, which is designed to gauge viewership on internet television? It could easily be weighted based on the advertisement::show time.
Trilobites existed way before dinosaurs, not after.
Trilobite
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
FAIL.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
So either, (a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely), or (b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu)."
Or (c), Nielsen Ratings begin to lose their importance, clout, and influence over the next few years.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
Fortunately ratings are based on what viewers report. I received a "kit" from Nielson to record viewing. I use a DVR that pulls out commercials, but I counted the programs I watched just the same. I'm guessing that those that are chosen for the viewer info kits may also be counting shows watched without commercials. While Nielson's goal is to have advertisers believe their adds will be viewed, it's not possible for them to strictly enforce what viewers report on the survey. Some viewers may choose to report Hulu or other sources for video entertainment they record.
the content providers add another line to their pitch sheets... "While 'Ten Million Gorillas in a Bus' had a Nielsen of 10.2, there were also 4,320,000 Hulu viewings." whether any ads ever show up on Hulu or not, they can still reinforce the show's pull.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You need to realize that managers these days, especially those in extremely abstract fields like advertising, spent a large chunk of their time looking at and "analyzing" various "metrics".
It's one thing when you're managing a factory, for instance. There are metrics there, too, but they are actually useful. You can track how many items you've manufactured in a given time period, how much labor was required to manufacture those items, how many are defective, the per-unit cost of each item, and so forth. Such metrics are useful and accurate because they correspond very well to reality. A manager who knows such metrics can make more educated decisions.
That's just not the case for many other managers in different fields. Like this article discusses, the metrics dealt with in advertising are much sketchier. Sometimes they exclude huge segments of reality. Other times, they're slightly better than pure nonsense.
To try and look useful, such managers go crazy with the analysis of this shitty data. They get developers to build them "dashboards" so they can watch their bullshit numbers fluctuate in real-time. Then they try to make decisions on this half-assed information, and of course make stupid decisions. But it looks like they're hard at work, and so they get the big bucks.
My most recent cable TV outage started me thinking about televised entertainment in general. I still remember when cable TV was highly desirable because it didn't have any commercials. Then commercials made occasional appearances in some shows, obviously a trial balloon to measure customer opposition. Then commercials quickly became as prevalent on cable as they were on broadcast TV.
I have been using MythTV for a couple years, and it's been fantastic. I haven't had to sit through a full commercial in that time, and I'd been loving cable TV again. While I fast-forward through commercials (automatic commercial skip is too unreliable), I sometimes saw something that grabbed my attention. In those cases, I usually watched at least a part of the commercial, and discovered a new product. Most often, though, I saved myself centuries (qualitatively speaking) of agony by not having to watch them.
When I got engaged, she and I had better things to do with our time than watch TV. Three weeks into our first month together, I realized that I hadn't missed TV at all, but was still paying $60/month for something I hardly used. I called Mediacom (the local cable company), and canceled the "service" last week.
At the same time, I subscribed to Netflix. For a fraction of the cost of cable, I have a vast choice of movies, a much smaller monthly bill, more reliable service, and a much happier experience overall experience.
When I first tried Hulu, it was an okay service. I had to sit through a couple 7-10 second commercials every half hour, but that wasn't too intolerable. Then Hulu started lengthening the commercials to 30 seconds. It was still not terribly intolerable, because there was usually only one of them every half hour. Then I started seeing two appear every half hour, and it became clear to me which direction Hulu was headed, so I stopped watching Hulu.
I'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather, and only to watch the news coverage to track the storms. My fiancé and I watch one movie a night in bed before going to sleep, and that's it. We have freed ourselves from television, and we have advertisers' greed to thank for that. We don't miss TV one bit.
So, Nielson won't count online TV viewing unless its riddled with commercials. If Hulu ever starts to be counted, you can be sure that it has become a worthless service. As far as I'm concerned, it has already become a worthless service.
Eventually, Neilsen will need to revamp their system, as online advertisements (seen around a video showing, rather than pauses during a show) will hopefully be a preferred method of advertising. I see the push-back as people chose internet sources, or DVR-style content skipping reduces the effectiveness of a Neilsen rating. Maybe even more Truman-style product placement in shows will eventually take over?
"(a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely)"
"Everyone" does not count in ratings. Only the Neilson families chosen for the rating process affect ratings.
They have no idea what I watch, or what you watch when it comes to whats viewed over the air. However, as another commentor
stated, they can know how many people are watching what shows on purpose when it comes to online viewing.
just post the ads at the end of the show. It will work like regular tv since I usually leave during commercials and browse other channels. would work great on hulu to just have all the ads after the credits.
We are in desperate need of a refresh in how shows are rated. Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers. With more TV viewing going online, a key demographic is not being represented fairly and as a result all of my favorite shows keep getting canceled. Arrested development, Firefly, etc. I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted, they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.
This move is at least a step in the right direction. The catch makes sense, though, since the whole point of the ratings is to determine how much the ad space is worth.
or else!
This is great news for botnet operators. They will soon have a new customer with deep pockets that need help bumping up their "viewership".
"We have freed ourselves from television, and we have advertisers' greed to thank for that. We don't miss TV one bit"
When it comes to fiancehood, past performance is not an indicator of future returns.
Not sure I agree with the statement that this rules out the networks online viewing.
I regularly watch Fox.com and CBS.com because I'm not at home when Bones and NCIS come on...and I still get annoyed at all the commercials. The have a commercial every 5 to 10 minutes just like when watching on network tv.
Some people never learn...no matter how many times something happens to them.
Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu).
And what are people supposed to be doing instead of hulu.com? Pirating? I don't agree with the excessive punishments that are being doled out to pirates but so long as they are as excessive as they are it seems to me that you're taking an unnecessary risk. I mean, seriously, are you so opposed to the notion of sitting down for a full hour instead of fifty minutes that you'd be willing to take that risk? If you're time is so valuable that you can't spend ten extra minutes sitting down then why are you even watching TV in the first place? Surely the fifty minutes you're willing to spend watching TV could be better spent doing something else?
Or maybe the alternative is paying $600.00 / year for cable TV? At that point, aren't you doing exactly what the advertisers want? Paying money *because of* advertisements? Personally, I'd just assume keep that $600.00 then spend it on something I could have otherwise gotten for free. Heck - I'd rather up and buy a new $600.00 laptop every year then spend that much on cable TV. Or maybe buy $600.00 worth of *commercial free* DVDs of the series' I would have otherwise watched on cable TV.
ratings aren't about who watched the show, it's about who watched the advertisements; otherwise, why not count all viewings regardless.
Makes me wonder if TiVo is paying the networks to put more ads in their shows so that more people by TiVos. Just another horrible conspiracy theory for your consideration.
Took an online survey about a year ago from Nielsen , first thing it wanted to do was download some software, an exe IIRC.
a no-go on linux.
I tried the survey in a VM windows instance and of course the file down loaded. Never did try too hard to find out what the
exe did, really didn't care that much, just reset the VM.
I have always assumed it was to measure my video viewing habits, but who knows?
Very simple.
rating = seeds * leechers
Neilsens services are no longer required.
-JP
Pardon?
I watch Hulu occasionally. I completely understand that their current model is unsustainable. They need more ad revenue if they're going to continue to exist. One way to do that is to put in more ads. I understand that. I'm comfortable with it. I would not abandon the site because of this.
People are already watching OTA TV with its current rate of ads. What makes the submitter think that free streaming should be any different?
or we can not give a flip what the nielson ratings say and keep watching hulu as is
No-one cares, people keep watching the services that they want to watch, the services keep making money through whatever channels they've always made, the content providers keep selling their content to whoever is dragging in the traffic?
Also, who is this Nielsen?
We will see 'blipverts' before long in this Network 23-like world.
The stuff in parenthesis is not even in the article, as your quotation marks would make us think(your retarded), and why would more ads be the death of Hulu? Most people use that service because they want to watch their favorite shows whenever and as often they want, not because they want less commercials. To be honest I prefer television commercials better because I don't have to watch the same one over and over again. Anyways, wouldn't most people just tab away from the commercials and when they heard their show start back up they just tab back.
Great. Maybe now the dumbasses at NBC will take their stuff off Hulu, so I can watch it from outside the US, I always thought the US networks should make their shows available vie internet and sell targeted advertising embedded in the same video stream as the shows. Obviously ads for car dealerships in the US wouldn't be interesting to people in other countries, nor would those dealerships be all that interested in getting access to my eyes in a foreign country, but through the magic of teh intarwebz, the US TV networks could sell advertising to advertisers who might ONLY have interest in access to eyes in specific foreign countries. I figured that just like I see ads in Portuguese on web sites I visit in the US (when I allow ads, of course) from IP addresses here in Brazil, ABC could embed video ads from advertisers with somethng to sell in the Brazilian market. There could also be standard web ads.
I should make some snide remark here about how there's no great loss from not seeing NBC shows since I quit Heroes during the second season (I was horribly disappointed with the final ep of the first season, which felt like it was thrown together at the last minute when they suddenly realized they only had one ep to wrap up the season after building things up really nicely for the first 21 eps), Saturday Night Live went from a normal bad phase to unwatchably unfunny while Tina Fey was head writer (I still haven't decided if she is funny or not, largely because SNL blew diseased goats when she was head writer), and the sometimes-funny Conan O'Brien has been exiled to bring the almost-always-unfunny bloated chin back to The Tonight Show, but there appear to have actually been a couple of funny moments on SNL just this last week. Too bad I wouldn't be able to find out without downloading a pirated copy of the ep. And I 'm STILL pissed off that I can't see the only legit copy of the Hedley & Wyche Toothpaste ad from an early '90s ep of SNL because NBC has removed all free video (e.g., YouTube) copies and only allows it to be watched via Hulu.
Since Lost's penultimate season is only now being broadcast on TV in Brazil (I don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV) and the last season is about to start in the US, only to appear a year or so from now on broadcast TV here, I would like to watch the new episodes as they become available online. I'm sure there are people in many other countries in situations similar to mine, and with similar interest in the show. That looks to me like a great opportunity for ABC to make some money selling video ads and regular web ads to advertisers who might be interested in people in other markets who want to watch the final season of Lost before it shows up on their local TV stations. I watched the penultimate episode of the first season of Heroes on the web at my sister's house in the US the day before watching the final episode on TV there. I didn't mind the ads that were in the video with the episode content, because it was actually less trouble to watch via web with ads than it would have been to set up a filesharing program and download the episode without ads. Most of the ads I saw or heard (while doing other things in the room during the ads) weren't all that relevant to me, but then again, I was watching from a computer at an IP address in South Carolina, not Brazil. Now it occurs to me that there's another massive marketing opportunity: I would gladly fill out a form with my name and home address in exchange for being able to watch the eps free via web and without having to resort to piracy. That would allow ABC, for example, to know something about avid viewers of its programs all over the world, which could help a lot with selling ads to a much wider range of advertisers. NBC is too stupid to see this opportunity (or to keep Conan over Jay after Jay's show at 22:00 tanked). Is ABC?
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
... or the death of Nielsen Ratings. Someone will show up to measure the views properly.
The dirty little secret in TV is that you, the viewer, are not the customer. You're the product being sold. The advertiser is the customer. Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads. That's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers don't want to pay for those viewers, since they get no benefit from their viewing.