Nielsen Will Start Tracking Netflix and Amazon Video

An anonymous reader writes Nielsen is going to start studying the streaming behavior of online viewers for the first time. Netflix has never released detailed viewership data, but Nielsen says they have developed a way for its rating meters to track shows by identifying their audio. From the article: "Soon Nielsen, the standard-bearer for TV ratings, may change that. The TV ratings company revealed to the Wall Street Journal that it's planning to begin tracking viewership of online video services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video in December by analyzing the audio of shows that are being streamed. The new ratings will come with a lot of caveats—they won't track mobile devices and won't take into account Netflix's large global reach—but they will provide a sense for the first time which Netflix shows are the most popular. And if the rest of the media world latches onto these new ratings as a standard, Netflix won't be able to ignore them."

Comments

What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> they will provide a sense for the first time which Netflix shows are the most popular

Umm...wouldn't Netflix already have this information at its fingertips in its own logs?

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have to be very strange not to gather that information...and they do display a currently popular section so that seems a tad unlikely.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[mu51c10rd]

Yes, in fact, they have an API for this. Many sites use it like instantwatcher.com. Seems easier to just get an agreement written up with the streaming companies to provide the raw data.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[Anonymous Coward]

They absolutely do. It is also worth noting that Nielsen ratings have been totally useless for years now and is not used as heavily.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[DerekLyons]

Netfilx has it - the folks that want to sell shows to Netflix, the folks that have shows on Netflix and want to keep them honest, etc... etc... these are the people who are the Nielsen's customers for this data.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[houghi]

This is not to give data to Netflix. This is to give data to advertising companies. That way they have a way of comparing.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[jedidiah]

...except they can't advertise to any of those people. If anything, it's perhaps a good way of measuring how far people will go to escape from the old model.

This seems like something useful for production companies that might contemplate bypassing conventionl TV entirely.

Still don't see the value in going through Neilson though. At best they could rate entire services and possibly give extra exposure to lesser services (besides the ones mentioned here).

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[medv4380]

Yes, but not given publicly. This is so that shows can use the ratings as leverage in negotiating contracts with Netflix. Which is also why netflix doesn't release the data publicly. They don't want some show figuruing out that half the netflix audiance watches the same program every time it's pushed out. They might think they have an angle and try to get more money out of netflix, or more money out of one of their competitors by offering and exclusive deal. Like Downton Abbey giving exclusive rights to Amazon because they needed something to get people to watch Amazon over Hulu.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[radarskiy]

If the amount of money that Netflix pays you depends on these numbers, how far would you trust Netflix's version of those numbers if you didn't have to?

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[davester666]

they don't want to pay netflix ANYTHING for the data. Nielsen wants it all for themselves.

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[Richard_at_work]

Why would Netflix give them access to that data?

Re:What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[Anonymous Coward]

To do what with, exactly? Provide to non-existent advertisers to see if they are getting the most value for their ad dollars on a platform that doesn't run ads?

What about SSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will this work if Netflix encrypts the traffic?

Re:What about SSL?

[xaotikdesigns]

It says that they are analyzing audio. I took that to mean that they have a microphone that will listen to what you are watching.

Re:What about SSL?

[Noah Haders]

Listen to me while I get it on while watching movies.

Re:What about SSL?

[GuldKalle]

It's still encrypted when played back, so it's just white noise. Netflix installs a decryption implant as part of the subscription.

Re:What about SSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone at Netflix will read the goddamned summary and realize they're listening to the audio, not sniffing packets.

Re:What about SSL?

[roc97007]

Listen to me while I get it on while watching movies.

"I don't know, it seemed like they had "The Best of Me" and Animal Planet on at the same time."

Re:What about SSL?

[Shatrat]

At least that only violates one person's privacy.

Re:What about SSL?

[thebryce]

It says that they are analyzing audio. I took that to mean that they have a microphone that will listen to what you are watching.

The nielsen ratings wikipedia article says they gather data via ether a viewer diary or a 'set meter' device attached to the TV. I'm betting they'll put microphones in the set meters (if they're not there already) to listen for audio signals like those little beeps that you sometimes hear on Pandora songs. I guess I always thought those beeps were an anti-piracy feature but they could be a privacy concern - what would stop a content provider from inserting uniquely mixed beeps of varying pitch and pattern to identify and track specific viewers via audio?

Re:What about SSL?

[EndlessNameless]

If they were going to include an audio form of a watermark, they could make it so subtle as to be undetectable.

With spread spectrum watermarking, you wouldn't be able to hear it, and only someone with the original pseudonoise sequence would be able to detect it. This provides the benefit of being practically impossible for would-be pirates to detect and remove---in addition to maintaining the quality of the original recording.

If they are using audible tones as a tracking mechanism, they are, quite frankly, so far behind the state of the art that it's laughable.

The point of such a service has evolved.

[Junta]

In the TV market, they were valued because the cable/broadcast/satellite services had no idea what frequency band users were paying attention to and thus no idea what was effective and what was not without some proactive examination of the viewer base. This was important for the program producers to value product placement, integrated advertising, and for the cable/satellite people to know what content was worth/not worth licensing.

For unicast streaming, the streaming service knows *precisely* what the users are paying attention to. For content producers, they control the licensing terms so they should be able to force Hulu, Amazon, and netflix to provide data as part of the deal of licensing it, in order to have data for soliciting things like product placement.
The streaming services themselves have all the data they need to entice advertisers that are independent of the content. Additionally, the advertisements are in no way hard linked to the streaming media. If the service wants to show you that ad, they don't need to give a rat's ass about *which* program you are watching.
Certainly the people providing the service know which pieces of content they license and how much they are watched to evaluate relative value of their library.

So the two remaining purposes are to let Amazon know which parts of Netflix library are valuable enough to fight for versus not bothering, and academic curiosity of the viewership. Of course, the former might be workable by requesting the data from the content owners as part of negotiations, and the latter doesn't really mean revenue...

Re:The point of such a service has evolved.

[rogoshen1]

I'm just hoping the data doesn't give some jackhole activist investor like Carl Icahn leverage to blackmail Netflix into selling advertisements.

Because you know, unrecognized revenue is the same thing as a loss, and Netflix has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits, or something.

Re:The point of such a service has evolved.

[xaotikdesigns]

Plus, there is a huge difference in how people watch regular TV versus streaming.

It may be that this month, NBC has the most watched show, but that's only because everybody already binge watched House of Cards last month. You're going to get completely different types of numbers.

Re:The point of such a service has evolved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just hoping the data doesn't give some jackhole "activist investor" like Carl Icahn

I really, really hate that term and whichever reporter thought it up ought to be flogged.

Re:The point of such a service has evolved.

[Em Adespoton]

There's another purpose too: it lets the major distribution networks see what *kind* of show people are watching. This way, when they review the pilots for the next season, they have that extra data point to take into consideration. It also means that these content producers can decide if it's worth entering a specific market segment in the streaming realm. As this is a transition period, this could be very useful information (producers can tune their contracts up front, and only rent properties that will boost their viewing base significantly while rent shopping their most popular items as exclusive deals with a single content delivery channel).

Aren't they a bit late getting started?

[BitterOak]

Seems like they're about five years late getting into this.

Re:Aren't they a bit late getting started?

[SeaFox]

Seems like they're about five years late getting into this.

Yup. They are trying to find a way to stay relevant when they are pretty much a part of the old-school media/cable machine that's dying out in the face of online/instant streaming.

In other news...

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

Newspapers start reporting on the Internet! You can get a documentary on DVD about the future of streaming, and the buggy-whip makers are designing novelty car decorations!

What service, exactly, is Nielsen providing?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is they don't want to share that with the companies they license the videos from, as they could come after for more royalties.

Do we need Nielsen to track netflix and amazon?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

These providers dish out individual streams! They seem to know what I might like and watch next!! Do they need Nielsen? That company's business model has gone kaput. The market has moved on.

What?

[roc97007]

> Nielsen Will Start Tracking Netflix and Amazon Video

What, you mean they haven't been tracking on demand and streaming video? Then, how are they at all relevant? The TV Tray Generation, who watches TV in real time and sits through the commercials, have been dying out for some time, and as a group are all but irrelevant now.

Thinking about it, this may help to explain why network suits regularly drop promising series that go on to become streaming favorites. It's not just that they don't understand their audience, but also that they're going by statistics from an organization that also no longer understands their audience.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking about it, this may help to explain why network suits regularly drop promising series that go on to become streaming favorites. It's not just that they don't understand their audience, but also that they're going by statistics from an organization that also no longer understands their audience.

Very likely so, I like many stopped watching TV on their schedule years ago.

Re:What?

[Hussman32]

My limited understanding is the reason advertisers still view Nielsen ratings is for the demographics (i.e. 18-49 male, 18-49 female...). You can't get those from DVR and streaming viewing, you need a family doing the diary work. Netflix now has profiles which may eventually help, but for now the ancient creaking machine of Nielsen still determines how a company's advertising dollar is spent.

Re:What?

[jedidiah]

They are bean counters pandering to other bean counters. Free TV is a model for cheapskates. It's interesting that it took as long as it did for it to slide into a race to the bottom with cut-rate reality style programming.

It's hard to say how many discriminating customers there are out there and if there are enough to support the better shows. You may think that "insert favorite show here" is the bee's knees but there might not be enough audience to support it.

Although the ala carte premium channels like HBO and Cinemax seem to do OK.

Re:What?

[tlhIngan]

What, you mean they haven't been tracking on demand and streaming video? Then, how are they at all relevant? The TV Tray Generation, who watches TV in real time and sits through the commercials, have been dying out for some time, and as a group are all but irrelevant now.

Actually, more people watch live TV than you think. DVRs are complex, and cable/satellite provided ones are generally unreliable and horrible to use, so most people actually DON'T use it. And a surprisingly large number don't bother skipping commercials because it's a PITA to do so when the box decides to add a second or two of latency to the response while you fast forward.

Plenty of people have DVRs purely because they want their HD programming, and that's what their cable company gave them. But they don't want to bother learning the DVR, they just want to turn on the TV and watch it.

For those third party DVRs like TiVo, if you're investing time and effort into it, then you're going to learn how to use it and use it to its fullest, so you're already a self-selected group that will skip ads and all that.

Thinking about it, this may help to explain why network suits regularly drop promising series that go on to become streaming favorites. It's not just that they don't understand their audience, but also that they're going by statistics from an organization that also no longer understands their audience.

Or, the streaming favorites appeal to the wrong people. Remember, the TV program ratings no one cares about When you hear the Big Bang Theory scored 5.5 last week, Neilsen gives that number away for free. That's not the product. The product stations want is the C3 or C7 numbers (minute-by-minute commercial ratings, live + 3 days or 7 days). The numbers Neilsen gives away for free are known as SD, L+3 or L+7 (Live+Same Day, Live + 3 days, Live + 7 days), which are absolutely worthless.

A show that people skip ads for should have a SD or L+3/L+7 number that's significantly higher than it's C3/C7 number, which means the free ratings of it should be high (e.g., 5.0 for BBT). The C3/C7 numbers for it would be low (which is what stations care about). So if your theory was true, then networks would drop a show with high ratings (C3/C7 numbers are secret because they're paid for by stations, so you rarely find out what they are).

No, there are plenty of reasons why a show is dropped. Firefly, for example, was only picked up by FOX because Joss Wheadon forced FOX to pick up Firefly if they wanted Buffy. (And FOX wanted Buffy). So politics ensured that Firefly intentionally wouldn't succeed so FOX could drop it the moment their contract said they could. Or the network plays Ping-Pong with the schedule so the show is at 7:30pm one night, 6:00pm the week after, completely absent the week after that, etc. Intentionally killing the ratings.

Oh, and networks love streaming services like Hulu and having the show up on their website, because they can ensure ads are unskippable.

Re:What?

[roc97007]

My limited understanding is the reason advertisers still view Nielsen ratings is for the demographics (i.e. 18-49 male, 18-49 female...). You can't get those from DVR and streaming viewing, you need a family doing the diary work. Netflix now has profiles which may eventually help, but for now the ancient creaking machine of Nielsen still determines how a company's advertising dollar is spent.

I understand, but that very demographic, 18-49 male or female, are the group least likely to be watching in real time.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take Legend of Korra. I think due to a leak and marketing issues, or maybe something else, it ended up being online for new episodes. Nick.com gives it free with ads. Amazon Instant Video, you can buy it (per episode or per season).

Now, if they let us buy it through out cable provider, to watch it commercial free (or even rent it commercial free for 1/4th the price), that'd be another revenue stream. I think $2.99/episode is kind of pricey for high-def, that $1.99/episode would be more fair for high-def ($1.99 being the stand-def price currently). I think $0.25 to $0.50 for a commercial-free 6 hour (maybe 24 hour) rental for new things on TV could be worth it. But, being cheap, I'd just use my DVR to skip the commercials.

Re:What?

[sinij]

Next, you will realize why cable TV shows are getting dumber and commercials more obnoxious.

Re:What?

[RPI Geek]

My wife got a Nielsen survey this year. She obliged them by dutifully filling out the book, and near the end of the week I glanced through it. I was surprised that she listed me as having watched TV with her nearly every day, when in truth I had only watched about 1-2 hours of TV in the whole week, and that was on Netflix.

I'm not sure why she lied in the diary, but it certainly cast the Nielsen ratings in a different light for me.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to understand what Nielson does as a business. To understand what Nielson does, you need to understand how the television business works in the US. First, you have a production company which makes a television show. They pay the actors, writers, etc. They sell the show to one of the networks (ABC, CBS, etc). (Sometimes the networks produce their own shows but not all the time, owing to regulations from the past which prevented them from doing so.) The networks turn around and sell commercial time to companies wishing to advertise. The amount the network can command depends on how many eyeballs they can deliver the commercial to.

This is where Nielson comes in - they tell the networks and the advertisers how many people watched the commercial. That is what they get paid for. Which is why they don't care how many people streamed something on Netflix - no commercials, no customer.

So what changed? Nielson has found a customer for the Netflix data. Now it's worth their while to meter it.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry your wife is a liar.

Amazon can go F itself

[rsborg]

So the two remaining purposes are to let Amazon know which parts of Netflix library are valuable enough to fight for versus not bothering [...]

So Amazon outbid Netflix for the Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. content (Dora, Peppa Pig, etc) that my kids love and then stuck it behind special monthly additional service (Freetime unlimited $5/mo without Prime and $3/mo including it). For now I can get the PBS content Netflix, and there are other options for the adventurous watchers that are great.

So this is the future, folks - yes, they'll bid for content, then essentially create another "channel" on their service.

Fractal balkanization, each layer costing the user more (and in the case of Amazon Prime - still not available on my Apple TV so requiring another device).

What's a non-pirating parent to do?

Re:Amazon can go F itself

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a non-pirating parent to do?

Pirate.

So they're gonna find "oot"

[Anonymous Coward]

That I watch the entire fuckin series of fuckin 'Trailor Park Boys' three fuckin times a year??? Well, I'm gonna raise a shitstorm about THAT!

Available 10 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Caveat: I used to work at Nielsen for their Online division...

This was available 10 years ago. Variations on the theme (video, campaign ads, surveys) is available there:

http://www.nielsen-online.com/login.jsp

No Thanks

[sexconker]

No thanks. Opt out. Do not track. That's my purse!, I don't know you!!, etc.

Cheapest and simplest solution

[Kevin Fishburne]

Write a bot to track The Pirate Bay. They give you the program name, upload date, and number of seeds and peers in real-time. They don't even require registration for this information, much less payment. Sure the data would require a little interpretation and extrapolation, but I can think of no better measure of success and popularity.

Audio?

[manu0601]

Does this mean they have a microphone spying of noise in the living room? That looks awkward, and it is a recipe for PR disaster if the device gets compromised.

Re:Audio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon already is going to start selling you such a product.

http://www.zdnet.com/amazon-echo-purchase-invites-going-out-7000035927/
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkOCeAtKHIc

And the NSA wants to talk to you about cell phones.

Why Amazon video?

[SuperKendall]

I don't have the numbers to prove it but using the Amazon service to find video to watch is horrific. I can only imagine Amazon is paying them for inclusion, because otherwise the numbers cannot be worth recording...

Ratings Don't Matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

TV Ratings don't matter... at least not in the way they've been sold to the public.

The notion that ratings are important because it means networks can charge more for advertising... is COMPLETELY BOGUS. Your favorite show doesn't necessarily get canceled because it's ratings are lackluster. It may get killed simply because in the era of shaping hearts & minds, your show is sending some of the wrong messages or it's not helping to cross promote other products or ideas.

Consider, the major broadcast TV networks are subsidiaries of much larger corporations. The % revenue and profit of these networks to their parent companies bottom line is less than 10% for all of them and less than 5% in most case. Furthermore, the different in revenue from the #1 rated network to the #5 network is ~150 million dollars. This difference represents less than 1% of the parent companies bottom line and often less than 0.3%! In other words, fighting for that additional 150 million dollars that separates the best performing network from the worst network doesn't really matter from the point of view of Wall Street. It's not going to change your stock price one bit.

The real value in these networks isn't in advertising revenue, it's in the cross marketing/promotion of their other subsidiaries products including media and celebrity products like bands, actors, film studios, etc) as well as shaping culture itself.

So if this is true, then the purpose of Nielsen ratings is
1) to misrepresent the nature of network programming as one being driven by public demand. To help sell and promote the lie.
2) To create and sell popularity and to help manufacture stars and personalities. Nielsen says a show is #1 and next thing you know everyone wants to join in and watch the #1 show.
3) To act as a coordinating body between the networks and the companies that own them. They all can make more money working together against the world population than they can competing with one another. It's like World Wrestling Federation complete with cross network faux feuds.

I'm partly responsible for this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year Nielsen sent me $2 cash and a survey.

I don't watch live TV, so I sent them back their same $2 along with the tear-off part of a Netflix DVD.

I guess they got the message! :D

Relevant?

[Hamsterdan]

I could be mistaking, but I'm pretty sure a streaming service already knows what people are watching. Can anyone bring those guys into the 21st century with a cluebat?