Slashdot Mirror
Less Television in Online Homes
Shaheen writes "USA Today has an interesting report about how homes that have an Internet connection watch an average of %13 (about an hour) less television than other homes each day. You can read about it here. "
What about those of us who forget to turn the TV off while
we read our email? The scariest thing to me is that 13% is
an hour. Who is watching 10 hours of TV a day?
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
You've just hit the nail squarely on the head. The Nielsen Group doesn't want a representative sample of all TV viewers - only the ones that advertisers can sell stuff to. People who watch TV for content aren't part of that group.
More to the point - the purpose of the Neilsen ratings isn't to tell TV producers what they need to get the eyeballs of the die-hard fans who watch one or two programs religiously - it's to tell advertisers where their dollars will be best-spent. Better to ignore the Babylon 5 fanatic who makes $80K/year and ignores the advertising in order to get the family of four making $30K and spending all their disposable income on the crap that Bratleigh and Snotley see during the commercials (er, the 30-second ones between the 30-minute ones!) every Saturday morning.
The TV viewer who changes channels when the commercials come on, or who only watches a few hours a week, is like the web surfer who turns off images and/or blocks banner ads. He or she who ignores the marketing is, perforce, not worth marketing to. By contrast, the people who sit, slack-jawed, through every commercial displayed, and who spend several hours a day doing it, regardless of whether the programming is worth watching or not, are a very sought-after market.
What this has done to the quality of programming is left as an exercise to the reader. Which, of course, is why many of us have abandoned television for the 'net.
Speaking of which - I loved being able to read a few articles about the 30th anniversary of the moon landing without having to sit through six hours of unending coverage about an inexperienced pilot who Darwinned himself out of the gene pool by being too stupid to trust his instruments instead of his vertigo-addled inner ears.
But back to your Nielsen experience - it's clear that TV advertisers are just as happy to not have to put up with people like us as we are not to have to put up with people like them. They go where the money is, we go where the content is. 10 years ago, I'd have been worried about this - after all, where do you go for content once all media have been dumbed-down for the slack-jaw set? Thankfully, the answer is right in front of us - we just make and distribute our own damn content, and to hell with anyone who tries to get in our way.
Sounds like a Slashdot Poll to me.
--
InstantCool
13% of eight person-hours is "about an hour."
If 13% is about an hour, 100% is about 8 hours, not ten.
Doug Loss
One possibility is that they watch less news on TV, using the Web to get their news instead. Also, on the Web, I can pick and choose which stories to read rather than watching/listening to a linear broadcast. I almost never watch the news anymore, except sometimes in the morning. I also haven't received the newspaper in many years.
"Who is watching 10 hours of TV a day?"
;)
Who is on the internet 24 hours a day
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Interesting thing is, is that the laugh tracks were put in to make the TV viewing experience more /human/. It seems that noone would laugh at tv shows unless people were laughing with them. Shows that have not used a laugh track have almost all perished because noone could find them funny.
It seems that most people need someone to laugh with them.
Oh well... i like the net better anyway... tv entertainment pretty much gears towards the lowest common denominator. The shows offer no real life situations, real value, or challenge people to think in any way.
They also serve to promote the "right" issues. Don't have sex, dont use drugs, smoking is bad, act like everyone else, and you'll be popular.
Like we need more robots around here.
Reminds me of a local newspaper article that asked kids what the most important thing they learned in school was this year, and one of them said that, knowing how to say NO to Drugs was the most important thing that they learned.
Really? Reading, basic math, Science, Real History, all took a back seat to the Anti-Drug message. There's your tax dollars at work!
... hi bingo
Seems to me that the reason households with the internet watch less television has more to do with affluency and education of the household's members, rather than the fact that they have the internet. People with higher education and high incomes tend to watch less television than the rest of the public--and are also more likely to have access to the internet at home.
Jalen
If the decrease in viewing time of 13% is 1 hour, then 1 hour / 0.13 = ~7.69 hours total. That is, 13% of 8 hours is 1.04 hours.
cpeterso
It's true that TV news shows tend to speak to a 'lowest common denominator' sort of audience. From their perspective, the more people there are who can understand what they say, the more people will watch their news show. I would think that the loss of viewers at the high end of the scale (i.e., people insulted by the low content level) is probably far outweighed by the gain of viewers in the lower levels.
In a similar vein, I think that news shows are becoming more and more entertainment-oriented and less informational. Shows like "Hard Copy" have already crossed the line; I hardly count them as 'news shows'. Again, it seems to be a ploy by the networks to attract more viewers, by presenting what they think will be a more enjoyable broadcast. This is also responsible for the high number of 'local interest' news stories, like "Child Athlete of the Week" or somesuch.
Is this because more people are turning to other sources for their news? Possibly. Personally I find 20 minutes of NPR on the way to work in the morning to be significantly more informative than watching the morning news. Otherwise, if I want headlines, I can find the wire services on several web sites which will also offer basic (or sometimes detailed) analysis. If I want sports news, I can turn to ESPN or their web site. NWS weather is available on many different web sites, usually in more detail than a 20-second weather forecast. It seems that perhaps network television (and newspapers) is becoming outdated as a source of 'hard' news. The only interesting information left for local news shows to cover is local news, which is only of interest to the community.
Alas, television is still the most commonly available source of information that can be updated instantly, and therefore it remains important. However, we are rapidly reaching the point where as many people have televisions as have Internet connections. I suggest that once we reach that point -- or even before! -- the need for news shows on television drops to near zero.
As I think I've made clear here, anything that you can get from a television news broadcast, you can get on the web, and usually in a more timely fashion. Network television needs to stop trying to do everything, because they do it all, but they do it all poorly. Stop broadcasting news, because there are plenty of other, better sources. Instead, let's try paying network executives to come up with some actual entertainment.
No, I read it this way:
... x = 68.96 minutes)
Wired homes watch an hour a day, which is 13% less than non-wired homes.
"Wired homes watch an average of 13% less TV -- about one hour daily -- than others, says the study"
So... (dusts off calculator) one hour a day being 87% of the 'others' total viewing,
(lessee 60/x = (100-13)/100
an hour a day is 13% less than 70 minutes a day?
I find that a lot easier to swallow than people are watching 8-10 hours of tv a day on average!
lynn:~$ less television
television: No such file or directory
lynn:~$ _
Methinks I need to get out more...
Television is a one-way hypnosis machine turning out nation into yuppie zombies. Television shows are just a way get people to watch commercials. The medium is owned by advertisers, looking out for their best interests, not your kids'. Check out Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television for elaboration.
Commercials and Advertisements are only for unnecessary items. If you need the item, you would go out and find it. Advertisers must create an artificial desire or need for something that you have no need for. Do you see more TV commercials for Coke or for water? You need water to live, you don't need Coke to live. Do you see more TV commercials for Doublemint gum or for vegetables? You need vegetables to live, you don't need Doublemint gum to live.
cpeterso
Evidently you've spent no time on IRC.
Using computers and the net doesn't make you any more intelligent unfortunately. Someone who spends 12 hours a day in IRC and Quake isn't someone I'd rate higher than a TLC/History Channel junkie.
The tool makes no difference. It's what you use it for.
http://www.bullnet.com
>I hope this clears things up for you
Heh, not in the least. You are going by Rob's synopsis of the article, and not what the article actually said, for one.
>From this we know that there is a 13% decrease in viewing time, and that this 13% decrease is equal to 1h.
Nope, the wired family watches an hour a day, which is 13% less than everyone else.
At least that's the way I read the article.
So, yes, it is one hour less per day.
[TMB]
cpeterso
Well, I can't argue with that, I guess. Man that thing was worded totally bass-ackwards.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Those folks watching 10 hours of TV a day are the Nielson Homes. For those that don't know, Nielson does the TV ratings. Not just anybody can get a Nielson box to put on top of their set. You have to be a TV junky to get one. It's the average Nielson Home that has the TV one ten hours a day. Half of them have it on longer!
:-) ) I only watched about six hours of TV a week, so it wasn't enough for them. (About as stupid as Gallop cutting their poll short when they found out I was writing in "none of the above")
I was once part of the Nielson "family" for about a week. They kicked me out of the program since I wasn't the "typical television viewer". (Anyone who's ever studied statistics reread that last sentence
Now ask yourself, if you were a TV producer, wouldn't you be interested in which shows people tuned into if they only tuned into one show? Who cares about people who change to a program just because the previous one went to a commercial break.
I no longer own a TV. I suddenly realized that I hadn't turned the thing on in six weeks, so I sold it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Of course, it does remain that for all the trash talk about net junkies having no life, at least they have some semblance of a life on IRC, /., usenet, etc. When you're sitting in front of the TV for ten hours a day, you don't even have that much human contact. Net junkies interact. Boob tubers don't. When you've seen the same Geiko commercial a dozen times in an hour and the same shows on Discovery/History Channel/A & E that were on last year, or the year before that, or the year before that ...., and the other new programming is mindless drivel, your mind seeks an escape to something less difficult than being productive but more stimulating than the jello-mold-cum-TV set. I think that's why so many people are delving into linux...they are sick of the same old stuff and want to try something a little more interesting. Welcome to the net. Here you don't have to watch rip-fests! Here you can join in them ;)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
If you thought the vegetarians were fun, just wait until you meet the TV-phobes.
True confession: Sometimes I like to drink and smoke while eating deep-fried meat in front of the television.
>This is not what the article states. Quoting verbatim:
>Wired homes watch an average of 13% less TV -- about one hour daily -- than others, says the study, commissioned by America Online
Bullshit. That's exactly what that says. I admit that its worded kinda wierd. Wired homes watch about one hour daily, 13% less than others - would have made more sense.
Not, Wired homes watch one hour less tv per day than others, 13% less. Makes no sense.
Only way to know for sure would be to look at the actual study. Anyone have a link?
Good advice I am sure. I've been a fan of the video toaster for years. And yes, I am probably reinventing the wheel by using linux to do something that has already been done on other systems... but that is kind of my point. I would like to make a killer video editing setup on Linux exactly because it appears to be unexplored territory. Linux has been successful at the number crunching side of some amazing movie affects... why not the visual side? It seems the only thing lacking is a specialized video card, and I would be very suprised if something suitable has not been created. I just have not yet discovered it. My only hope is that the hardware is accessible via an open API of some sort. It is very important to me that I can *lift the hood* on my editing system and customize the software.
Still hoping for some more hardware pointers...
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
Just passed this to my wife, and she says 8-10 hours is about right for her, while she does other things around the house.
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
It has been suggested that our society is making a transition from one that prefers to be entertained passively (e.g. TV, movies) to one that prefers interactive entertainment (e.g. Nintendo and Sega games, using internet resources). So, the article isn't all that surprising. Many web resources provide information that some people might have previously gotten from TV (such as news) in 24/7 availability. I imagine as more households get online, and the opportunities for online entertainment increase, the trend of watching less TV will continue.
;-)
I know, in our household, the number of hours of TV watched would probably be even fewer if my husband and myself could both be online at the same time!
YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender