Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Only 39 Percent of Viewers Choose Live TV As Their Default Option, Says Study (deadline.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the channel-surfing dept.

According to a new study by Hub Entertainment Research, viewers are increasingly defaulting to on-demand sources like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Hulu instead of live TV. The study found that only 39% of viewers tune into live programming from a traditional pay-TV provider, down from 47% last year. On-demand sources, collectively, were the first choice for 48% of viewers. Deadline reports: For viewers aged 18-34, the pattern is more stark -- only about a quarter (26%) of the demo lists live TV as a default, compared with 35% a year ago. One clear influence on consumer behavior is the increase in TV sources -- the average person has 4.5 distinct sources to choose from (including linear TV, DVR, VOD, Netflix, etc.). That number is up from 3.7 in 2014. Among viewers 18-34, the number is higher, at 5.1 sources -- plus, Hub found that fully 50% of 18-34-year-olds subscribe to at least two of the "big three" SVOD services, Netflix, Amazon or Hulu. Even older generations accustomed to the "clicker" have turned away from live TV as a default. About 56% of viewers 55 and older listed live as their first choice, but that's down from 66% a year ago.

33 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Commercials by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excessive advertising, they did magazines in, now so too TV. The world-wide-web is next.

    1. Re:Commercials by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Not sure about you but I frequently now find the Ad blocker detected and I get blocked and restricted in my viewing of the web sites. I think we are fast approaching the time when either people with Ad Blockers get blocked completely or we end up with subscription model. Sadly I could put up with Ads if they were Not intrusive cunts about how they did the advertising. Auto play sound and video, scroll over expanding ads, pop ups, pop unders etc etc. We are fucked one way or the other.

    2. Re:Commercials by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      This is truth. I don't mind ads. Some ads I even like to see. I don't even mind a certain level of targeting. I would much rather see ads about computer hardware than ads about vaginal cream.

      I draw the damn line when the ad is a video that auto plays, that I can cut the fuck off, and chases me down the damn screen.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    3. Re:Commercials by quenda · · Score: 1

      people with Ad Blockers get blocked completely

      If necessary, ad blockers can be stealthy and download all the ads. Maybe even "render" them, but blanked over.

    4. Re:Commercials by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same. The Reader View trick seems to work against many of them though.

      View a page, adblocker notice pops up being annoying as shit. Reload page, press F9 ( Firefox ) and the page is loaded into Reader View.
      Content becomes readable, no ads. No blocking notice. YMMV, doesn't work on all sites.

      Those that it doesn't work on, I simply skip.

      Those sites that are known for blocking I skip completely by default.

    5. Re:Commercials by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No lie there.

      Once advertisements in magazines exceeded the number of articles or information I wanted to read, I ceased all of my subscriptions. ( years ago mind you )

      I've actually blocked entire TV networks ( I'm looking at you FX ) because of their advertising methods. Early in the show, the ratio of show to commercials favors the show. However, the longer the show runs, the less you get to see in one segment before the next set of commercials ( which, maddeningly, are the same GD commercials over and Over and OVER again ) breaks in. By the end of the show, you're lucky to get 5-7 minutes of show without a commercial break.

      Fuck that. Program it out.

      You're right though. We're seeing the same shit happen with the net and excessive advertising will be its demise.

    6. Re:Commercials by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Try a different ad blocker.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Commercials by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Ads in magazines I never had a problem with. Byte, Computer Shopper, and Personal Computer World were about 70-90% ads, and it was fine, because the magazines were also massively thick reflecting the fact that the ads didn't mean less content, and it wasn't as if the ads were interrupting your reading.

      TV on the other hand, hell even 25% ads is a problem because those ads are shortening the content and interrupting the content. If a TV show that runs for 60 minutes is barely over 40 minutes long because the network needs to ensure there's more than 15 minutes available for advertising, it's a problem.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Commercials by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Try a different website.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    9. Re:Commercials by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 1

      I haven't watched network TV since YouTube, Netflix and Hulu became available.

      Before YouTube Red / Premium, I used adblock. But, once it they offered a no-ad subscription... I went for it.

      Same here. Paying for Youtube Red so that I don't have to see their fucking adverts, I don't give a fuck about their "youtube originals" content

      The problem is, they're not paying their content producers enough for them to not also show their own adverts embedded as part of the fucking video so I can't skip it

      Every time Linus Sebastian interrupts his own show (Linus Tech Tips) to tell me about Tunnelbear or some other shit, I feel like punching him in the face

      I wish I'd never heard of Patreon either

      Although it's not all content producers doing this so it's semi manageable, I just end up having to avoid certain channels after the first advert

    10. Re:Commercials by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I just DVR that shit. I never watch a program live because of the damn ads.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    11. Re:Commercials by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Not sure about you but I frequently now find the Ad blocker detected and I get blocked and restricted in my viewing of the web sites.

      The vast majority of content is available elsewhere. If a site is restricting your access when you use an ad blocker, don't use that site. With very few exceptions (/. being one), the commentary simply isn't worth the effort of reading. (And /. is declining towards that standard as the UID count pushes towards 10^7.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. I've been using Tivo since 2000 by SensitiveMale · · Score: 5, Informative

    FF, rewinding, and saving programs are necessary. Watching a 60 minute show in 40 minutes makes a huge difference. Skipping over a boring segment and saving another 10 to 20 minutes saves even more time.

    Oh, and pausing at boobs on TV. That's killer.

    1. Re:I've been using Tivo since 2000 by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh, and pausing at boobs on TV. That's killer.

      It was what got me watching Survivor again.

    2. Re:I've been using Tivo since 2000 by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      Skipping over a boring segment

      Since the rise in reality shows, its been a bit more than 10 to 20 mins here. Some might say the entire genre.

    3. Re:I've been using Tivo since 2000 by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"I've been using Tivo since 2000. FF, rewinding, and saving programs are necessary. "

      Me too. Been doing it since the first TiVo came out. I can't stand commercials and the lack of control. I also can't imagine watching any other way. It is even MORE convenient that streaming because it doesn't require a live Internet connection to play it, all actions are instant and smooth, I can even look frame-by-frame, and it starts at full res (no "ramping up and down" depending on bandwidth or checking). Plus the remote is far more functional, and I can do "slow-mo" and "speed watching". And things I planned to watch months from now that I have recorded don't just "disappear" because it isn't carried anymore.

      I find it amusing the summary calls watching cable or over the air "live TV", which it is not... as if DVR's don't exist.

    4. Re:I've been using Tivo since 2000 by antdude · · Score: 2

      Only boobs? What about other stuff? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:I've been using Tivo since 2000 by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Comcast might be a bunch of asshats, but their x1 interface does it right. I can record a program, easily switch to a streaming version if I tune into something midway throught, or set a recording for a later airing if no on-demand is avaliable.

      They throw up the 'no-fast forwarding' warning on the on-demand programs, but I have yet to find one where ff or 30-second skip button doesn't work. When I had U-verse, they really meant it and it was a huge pain to ff on-demand. God forbid your DVR misses the last 15 minutes of a show and you just want to watch that part on-demand.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  3. Re:I am God's gift to you rotten bastards... apk by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Woah, its like all the trolls just reached critical mass and started imploding upon themselves into a singularity!

  4. Tech changed by darkain · · Score: 2

    A large part of this is due to the fact that the switch over to ATSC, there was a lot of confusion. Most people think that OTA TV doesn't even exist anymore now that analog TV is gone. My peers, even tech ones, are shocked to find out that I have a network attached ATSC tuner for my house and can stream live TV on every device in my house from it.

    1. Re:Tech changed by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Was there no promotion of digital terrestrial TV in the USA? Here in the UK there was a big push under the "Freeview" brand - tens of channels (including a few HD). Works well, if you like TV - I don't watch much TV (either live or streamed), but my parents do, and it's good enough that they cancelled their pay TV subscription.

      Sure there was promotion and they even subsidized converter boxes but the broadcast footprint was so much smaller that to 2/3rd of the potential viewers, it was all lies.

  5. Re:I am God's gift to you rotten bastards... apk by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    Damn! I guess he told us. I don't even think I've reached that level of jackassery.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  6. as a coincidence... by roc97007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As a complete coincidence, according to the last census, people in the US age 45 and over account for 39.4 percent of the population. Expect the percentage of "live TV" viewers to drop almost directly as people born in 1975 and earlier age and drop off the end.

    In other words, watching "live tv" is largely an old person's pastime. What I choose to call "the TV tray generation".[1] And it's dying out.

    [1] Yes, I know 45 to 85 or thereabouts can arguably be called two generations. Work with me here.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:as a coincidence... by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      As a complete coincidence, according to the last census, people in the US age 45 and over account for 39.4 percent of the population. Expect the percentage of "live TV" viewers to drop almost directly as people born in 1975 and earlier age and drop off the end.

      In other words, watching "live tv" is largely an old person's pastime. What I choose to call "the TV tray generation".[1] And it's dying out.

      [1] Yes, I know 45 to 85 or thereabouts can arguably be called two generations. Work with me here.

      See, I think the question's wording is going to alter the calculus in one form or another.

      I've got more friends who will actively sit-down-and-expressly-watch a TV show on Netflix than they will watch it on the actual cable channel when it broadcasts. At the same time, many of those same people leave NCIS reruns or HGTV running in the background just to add a little noise to their apartment. I'm not saying the TV tray generation didn't do passive TV watching at all, but I think the lack of both streaming services as an alternative and internet services competing for attention (as well as generally-better radio content for 'apartment noise') factors in pretty heavily. I think it's similarly possible that Boomers and X-ers might be more willing to call apartment noise "TV watching", while millennials and Gen-Z might limit that term only to sitting down and explicitly watching a particular show.

    2. Re:as a coincidence... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      As a complete coincidence, according to the last census, people in the US age 45 and over account for 39.4 percent of the population. Expect the percentage of "live TV" viewers to drop almost directly as people born in 1975 and earlier age and drop off the end.

      In other words, watching "live tv" is largely an old person's pastime. What I choose to call "the TV tray generation".[1] And it's dying out.

      [1] Yes, I know 45 to 85 or thereabouts can arguably be called two generations. Work with me here.

      See, I think the question's wording is going to alter the calculus in one form or another.

      I've got more friends who will actively sit-down-and-expressly-watch a TV show on Netflix than they will watch it on the actual cable channel when it broadcasts. At the same time, many of those same people leave NCIS reruns or HGTV running in the background just to add a little noise to their apartment. I'm not saying the TV tray generation didn't do passive TV watching at all, but I think the lack of both streaming services as an alternative and internet services competing for attention (as well as generally-better radio content for 'apartment noise') factors in pretty heavily. I think it's similarly possible that Boomers and X-ers might be more willing to call apartment noise "TV watching", while millennials and Gen-Z might limit that term only to sitting down and explicitly watching a particular show.

      I think you have a point, and this is difficult to accurately categorize. I've seen examples of leaving the TV on for "background noise", so you're on to something there. (I personally hate this -- if I'm going to watch TV I'll sit down and watch it -- I saw Lion (2016) last night, and Please Stand By (2017) a week ago, otherwise haven't seen much of anything... oh, and one time-shifted episode of The Expanse around Tuesday (I'm way behind). And then I'll get up and turn it off and do something else, because the TV is a distraction to conversation in a way that music in the background is not.) Wife, on the other hand, will sit in front of the oldies channel for 18 hours on a stretch on weekends, (she has her own TV) watching reruns of Emergency!!! and Love Canal, sorry, Boat, reruns of soap operas and old black and white horror films. When I ask her what she's doing, she says "just killing time". Well, ok, I'm taking the dogs to the park, why don't you come along? Get some fresh air, a little sunshine? No, she doesn't care to do that, Judge Judy is about to come on.

      I freely admit this colors my thinking. And that I'm probably blaming the device. But I observe that we (wife and I) are both of "the tv tray generation". Both sets of parents commonly ate dinner on trays in front of the TV, because dinner time was when all the good shows came on, and that was our experience growing up. As a geek, I was an early adopter of on-demand TV, and this slowly weaned me off sitting in front of the glass tube when the networks wanted me to be there. And later, I realized I was watching less and less TV overall. There's a real world out there, etc etc. Wife never broke free. Sometimes I'm really sad about that.

      But to the point, what is measurable is that real time TV (broadcast and non-demand cable) is dropping in viewership. There are, what, three generations now? who have grown up or were introduced in early adulthood to the idea that TV is something they could watch on their own terms, not whatever the stations spew whenever they want to spew it. And lo and behold, the networks are finally starting to notice, and in what resembles a panic, starting their own on-demand services. Too late, I believe.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  7. I don't always watch TV but when I do... by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    Even when I do watch TV it is very rarely live. Usually I watch off my DVR, after the fact so I can FF thru the commercials.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  8. Why waste time watching live TV by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I can watch exactly the content I want on any number of streaming services for around $50 bucks a month total (assuming I want to subscribe to them all at once). I don't care for sports so the cable tv industry can bite me. Of course, they own the wires so they've been hosing me on my Internet to make up for it though. Hopefully we'll get some pro-consumer congress critters in during the mid terms and they'll have to back off on that crap though.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Re:Sure.. blame streaming by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    I've given up live TV, and I live in the UK where the BBC is ad free, and the main commercial channels are very tightly regulated. Streaming is simply better. The broadcasters know this. They blame streaming because streaming really is the cause of their problems.

  10. Re: Sure.. blame streaming by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    There are no ad breaks. Who cares what happens between shows?

  11. Live TV picture quality is too bad to watch it... by c120plus · · Score: 2

    Have you tried really watching a complete show on a traditional US broadcast channel lately? It's not only the ad breaks, there's a terror of logos and banners running over the content. This is fine if you have the TV blaring in the background while you play with your iPad, but useless if you really want to watch the show. Netflix has none of that, is cheap and has decent programming. No wonder that people prefer to watch that instead of broadcast TV, at least for anything that's not a live event.

  12. Unlimited wireless too? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Anonymous Coward wrote:

    Call up your local ISP and ask for the "I'm a cheap bastard"(*) internet plan.
    The speed will suck, but it'll be unlimited for like $10 or $20 /mo.

    (They're all required by law to offer it, but only cheap bastards use it.)

    Are even satellite and cellular ISPs required to offer unmetered service? Because many less populated areas are outside the service footprint of fiber, cable, and DSL, particularly areas where farmers have to upload big files to a crop consultant.

  13. And get dinged for not reading TFA by tepples · · Score: 1

    Once the majority of featured articles on the front page of Slashdot at any given time use adblock detection, it'll become less practical to just "Try a different website."

  14. When your roommate is a parent by tepples · · Score: 1

    The most recent economic recovery hasn't resulted in a lot of wage growth. Thus economic circumstances have forced a lot of late Xers and millennials to move back in with parents, exposing them to a baby boomer's TV tray habits.