|
 |  Atlantic Online -
Nov-03-200946% Watch DVR With Commercials(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Out of laziness, habit or interest, people actually sit through commercials even while watching recorded TV on their DVRs. Plus, some shows are getting big bumps from DVR viewing in the three days after they air. Despite whatever happened between them in the past, DVRs are now broadcasters' best friends. That's the calculus of a New York Times article today, which points to gains by shows like House, The Office and Fringe when you compare live viewer stats to those who DVR. Meantime, programs like The Jay Leno Show that are "DVR-proof" don't get that bump. [1] The NY times article uses the numbers 7-12% which would mean ad revenue increases in the.7-1.2% range. When you take into account how many people choose not to watch TV live only because they have a DVR, without which they would watch their shows live, DVRs could very well be costing networks money instead of making them "free" money. With that 10% number only 1 in 10 DVR viewers would have had to watched live if DVR didn't exist for them to see the same revenue stream, and in most cases I would imagine more than 1 in 10 DVR viewers would watch their favorite shows live if they didn't have their DVRs.[2] No one listens to us. The article doesn't even mention the biggest benefit to DVRs -- even beyond the fact that people watching them still watch commercials: that it allows people to become more connected to certain shows, since they're less likely to ever miss an episode. That makes them more likely to watch those shows regularly (with or without the commercials). If someone can't keep up otherwise, they'll just let the show go entirely. The other amusing finding in the article is that NBC's attempt to "DVR-proof" itself by moving Jay Leno to 10pm (on the theory that more people would watch it live when they couldn't fast forward through the ads) has totally backfired. That's because it also means that if people miss the show, they don't go back and watch it days later (who wants to watch stale jokes?) -- so fewer ads get watched in the long run (compared to a show that would be recorded and watched later).[3]
Let me begin by saying I do not have a DVR. Do people who DVR shows to watch later, actually watch the commercials? I thought one of the benefits of watching a show via DVR was fast forwarding through the commercials.[2]
Watching more shows means watching more ads (whatever percentage of ads are actually viewed), which means more money. DVRs actually help companies that make money when people watch their shows. Imagine that ''' when devices allow consumers to access content the way they want, everyone finds a way to make more money and expand the market (see, for example, iPods, Walkmen, VCRs, FM Radio, Books). It has also saved shows from cancellation.[4] And, here we are, with TV folks finally realizing that the DVR is not killing TV, but actually helping it. Basically, lots of people still watch ads, even if they're watching a time-delayed program. What's funny is that throughout the article you have execs insisting that this was a shock to everyone and no one could have predicted it.[3]
Mikey, you are absolutely correct. That's beside the point that there will be confusion because of this article. While the subject of this article is arcane inside baseball for the TV industry "We switched from Live program ratings for ad pricing to C+3 commercial ratings and the sky didn't fall", the effect will be to generate confusion of the "Hey, DVR viewing (meaning the difference between Live+SD and Live+7 program ratings) really does help shows" variety across the media and certain fans.[2] BTW, Nielsen DOES measure DVR viewing one week out. The point of this article is that not many more commercials get watched because of the extra week of DVR viewing over the commercials that were watched Live and the same night the program aired on DVR. They're not the only ones that post fake ratings.[2]
While I agree that this article could fuel misconceptions because it doesn't lay out the fact there is a difference between L+SD we all see reported and the live program numbers Poltrack is talking about, I still think the point of the NYT article is valid. There are more people watching commercials on their DVR than you would think, and more than the networks estimated.[2] The nice thing about watching a recorded program on your DVR is that you can skip past the ANNOYING commercials. I think its recognition that most commercials are crap and network execs know this when they complain that no one will watch commercials. When there are good commercials, advertisements for something I'm interested in or anything of value, I do watch those commercials. Even to the point that I'll rewind them to watch them again. Who wants to watch crappy commercials? Or the same commercials every commercial break? Am I going to skip over these? Of course! This is a no brainer.[3]
Ultimately the lack of tracking for traditional live TV watching is another reason that networks may want to consider becoming DVR and streaming friendly. They know when I watch an episode on Hulu and with cookies can tell my viewing habits pretty accurately. With DVRs that can be tracked they likewise get an idea of how many commercials I am watching or skipping.[5] "DVR homes average 22.4% higher C+3 ratings than non-DVR homes." Their attempt to say "see, DVR's boost commercial watching!" is almost certainly self selection bias nonsense. Instead of comparing DVR households (which are early adopters and likely heavier TV viewers) with non-DVR households, the interesting comparison (which is impossible) is how many broadcast TV commercials do current DVR households watch compared with to the number of commercials they watched immediately before getting DVRs.[2]
Two years ago, in a seismic change from past practice, Nielsen started measuring television consumption by the so-called commercial-plus-three ratings, which measure viewing for the commercials in shows that are watched either live or played back on digital video recorders within three days. This replaced the use of program ratings. At the time, network executives fiercely resisted the change, fearing that they would never get credit for recorded shows because viewers would skip through all the commercials.[2] I predict an on demand system for TV. Broadcasters no longer produce 24 hours of television, which, admittedly, is ridiculous. They 'release' their shows and programs on a given time of the day. As a viewer you're free to start streaming them whenever you feel like it. Because there is no need to fill the day up, less TV will be made so more money can be invested per hour of TV. Also, it's fair for viewers because this allows a service where you pay, based on how much you watch.[5] I don't have a DVR, and I watch almost no TV at all. I'd almost certainly watch more if I had a DVR, since there's a lot of stuff I'd actually like to watch and for various reasons it's just not convenient to watch it at the time it's broadcast. TVNZ's on-demand site is basically horrible, can't download so the quality is limited to what can stream, and they force you to watch ads (I'm sure more fewquently than the broadcast ones) plus I pay for bandwidth so it's not 'free' for me at all.[3] What's interesting is that the article basically states that everything is fine with regards to DVRs, and a smaller-than-assumed chunk of dough has been lost. What's amazing is that TV ad space sales-folk will now use information like this to sell space to your clients, and you'll let them, even though things like this are said without even trying to hide: "The most basic reason, according to Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media, a media buying firm, is that the behavior that has underpinned television since its invention still persists to a larger degree than expected. "'It's still a passive activity,' he said."[6] According to Nielsen, 46 percent of viewers 18 to 49 years old for all four networks taken together are watching the commercials during playback, up slightly from last year. The most basic reason, according to Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media, a media buying firm, is that the behavior that has underpinned television since its invention still persists to a larger degree than expected. "It's still a passive activity," he said. That 46% of people don't want to be bothered to hit the fast-forward button on the remote, because they're too busy vegging out in front of the TV. When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense.[7] In what may seem a media business version of the Stockholm syndrome, television network executives have fallen in love with a former tormentor: the digital video recorder. The reason is not simply that more households own DVRs ''' 33 percent compared with 28 percent at this point in 2008 ''' helping some marginal shows become hits. It is also that more people seem content to sit through the commercials than networks once thought.[8]
Stay tuned for the network's latest DVR strategy : acceptance. Armed with the latest Nielsen data, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox are rushing to tell advertisers that even with a set-top box and its bevy of pauses, fast forwards and 30 second skips at the ready -- we're guessing this doesn't apply to Media Center users on automated setups -- most viewers simply settle in and watch the commercials anyway.[5] I tend to multitask when I watch TV, so I don't always remember to grab the remote when a commercial starts, but if I'm watching delayed live TV I always fast forward. I don't know why they think anyone will stop and watch.[8] Im one of the "often forget to fast forward through commercials" people but its not because Im watching the commercials, its because Im doing other things while watching TV so Im either barely watching the show or using the commercial breaks to leave the room.[9] Just as it turned out that just about everyone was too lazy to actually stand up and change a channel before the creation of the remote control, a number of people are just too lazy to lift up the remote to fast forward though commercials. Or they are only half - watching the show while they do something else. Or they are cooking dinner and don'''t have a hand to reach for the remote. Or they fell asleep.[4]
There's a lengthy piece in the New York Times about digital video recorders like TiVo, and the units you can rent from your cable provider. The scope is basically that the devices may not be hurting programs as much as was once believed — in fact, folks may just be watching those ads and "forgetting" to fast forward through them. Other interesting hypotheses regarding the uptick: commercials are being made "better".[6] I fast forward through commercials but my missus likes to watch every ad at least once.[9]
I know that based on the C3 data released earlier, the live+SD ratings widely reported are pretty indicative of the C3 ratings already (in fact the C3 was generally a tick down from the L+SD), but it sounds like the gap between L+SD and C3 would be larger if not for the larger than estimated DVR Commercial viewing. All of this being said, it is still true that no show is going to have a big swing in ad revenue from DVR viewing yet.[2] Dollhouse had a 40% increase in ratings from DVR viewing in the post that was linked. That big increase likely contributed 4% to the advertising revenue for that show.[2]
I guess I'm looking a few years down the road. If DVR viewing (+3 or +7) is boosting ratings, even if only by a few percentage points, while advertisers may not be valuing that kind of viewing now, might that type of viewership become increasingly acceptable in the future (and therefore actually lead to significant gains in revenue)? Such that DVR-viewing for Dollhouse would lead more than 4% revenue gains? While I'm not a Dollhouse fan, it seems that equation doesn't really make much sense, and that the 4% gain has to go up. I guess the real question is whether TV is in trouble because it needs to shift the way it's doing everything, or whether we are in a transition period.[2]
The broadcast network PR machines have been talking to Bill Carter at the NY Times again, and after his article today on how broadcasters love DVRs, I can guarantee massive confusion will ripple across the TV press (not to mention some segments of TV fandom) about the effects of DVR viewing on TV shows.[2] I would watch almost zero TV if it was not for the DVR. Given everyone's busy schedules time shifting TV shows is the only way to find the time to watch what I want to watch.[3] At home I rarely watch commercials (just the ones that I have learned are fun to watch) At my brother-in-law's house we sit through all of the commercials when watching recorded shows. I think the explanation is that he and his family have a different way of watching tv and they really don't want it to be interactive. They also don't pay close attention to the plots (they never pause a show when the phone rings, for instance). It's just a different style of tv watching I'm sure this difference has always existed, but we never had a way to measure it before.[10] Those marketing guys are glass half full people. If I'm watching broadcast TV instead of Hulu.com, I mute the commercials, take a break and wait till the show comes back on.M My wife recently quipped, "Where do they get these numbers anyway?" Unless our Cable company watches the watchers, the few houses Nielsen polls must be inadequate.[10] People might use the commercial breaks as an opportunity to multitask, too: Bathroom trip, get a beer (i.e., preface to a later bathroom trip ;), answer your kid's question, check messages, etc. A commercial break turns out to be a pretty good amount of time in which to do small tasks that one often wants to do even when watching a show without interrupting the action.[7]
Meaning that shows with big DVR gains are, in many cases, gaining viewers for the commercials as well. That a "DVR-proof" show like Jay Leno's is not actually a good thing, because if people did feel compelled to record his show, the advertisers might get some extra viewers.[9] Reality shows like American Idol involve viewer participation by voting for contestants. Active reality shows like this are the least likely to be watched on DVR, because they're treated much like sporting events -- watching live matters to people.[7]
The shows that people watch most passively are also the most likely to viewed later on DVR. There's little doubt that TV executives are thrilled with this news from Nielsen. In a sense, many people's laziness outweighs their hatred for ads. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be particularly good news for internet advertising: most banner ads urge users to click on them -- which requires an active behavior. It may depend on the kind of Internet user -- passive or active.[7] I don't have to stay up late to watch shows. I wouldn't watch them anyway, and I do leave the ads running, because I'm lazy (which is why so many other people just watch the ads, I bet ya!). They're a good time to get up and do something else or let your mind drift, which is what happened when they were on non-recorded TV anyway.[3]
Actually, he's right. You're probably thinking of local ads, while he's clearly talking about syndicated ones. They get played more often than TV ads, and its a fact that people don't channel surf on the radio very much during shows. If you need numbers their readily available.try Premier Radio Network, for example.[5] TV right now is very much like a bloated balloon, and I soon expect it to blow. That's unacceptable. Networks need the money from ads, but even more so because for every 5 minutes of ads you eliminate, you have to make 5 minutes more TV. It appears that television as we know it is just no longer a profitable equation, also because internet is eating chunks out of the ratings.[5]
The New York Times breaks down the commercial-plus-three ratings system the networks initially opposed that could end up saving shows like Heroes from cancellation -- though a return to the old way of thinking might be worthwhile if it means an end to that show's now pitiable existence.[5] There is no denying it. That said, if there were C, C+SD and C3 regularly and commonly reported in the press, and we said "there's really only a very small bump between C+SD and C3 nobody would think it was harsh. Some fans of shows will inappropriately put a lot of hope in "Live+7 numbers saving their shows,and articles like the one in the Times add to that problem. The fact is networks can and WILL spin this any way they can to their advantage.[2]
The published time is 4:00-4:30, so my Tivo records all but the ending of the show. I've tried to think of a benign reason why they do this, but it doesn't really matter, because the result in my case is that I no longer watch Futurama on Comedy Central. At least in the 31- or 61-minute case, the extra minute is typically a silly scene that's not essential to the plot.[3] Heck, even now, if I want to watch an hour long show "live", I start it records and then show up 15 minutes later to start watching.[3] As it is now, If I forget to record or watch something, I end up downloading it. I find myself downloading more shows than actually watching them on my TV. Reply[5]
I now watch just about all of my TV shows on my DVR. Why should I sit there for 30 minutes for 22 minute program content? Furthermore, I get to watch those late night shows at my convenience, especially competing shows such as Conan Obrien and Dave Letterman.[10] A big part of the benefit of taping shows is to skip the commercials and watch a one hour TV show in 45 minutes.[8] Right. The debate about DVRs is that people don't watch commercials because when they've recorded a show, they can simply skip over them.[6] The fear was that DVRs would damage the current TV distribution model that is based on the assumption that people sit and watch all of the commercials.[4] So it is with DVRs. In most reports, DVRs have been discussed as if they're completely antithetical to the TV networks' advertiser-based model; it was assumed that anyone who uses a DVR must be skipping through the commercials.[9]
As Bill Carter reports in the New York Times, networks are starting to wake up to the fact that many DVR users don't fast-forward the commercials.[9] According to a New York Times article today, not everyone has the same attitude as I do when it comes to skipping commercials.[7]
Media Decoder is an insider'''s guide to the media industry that tracks the transformation of the movie business, television, print, advertising, marketing and new media. It's a showcase for the extensive media coverage throughout The New York Times and a window on how the business of connecting with consumers is changing in the digital age.[8]
The end result of people like me is that advertising will become embedded in the programming in ways that you cannot possibly ignore. This already happens, of course, but producers and advertisers will find better ways of doing it. It's called product placement. Other ways of promoting products or services already exist. Market manipulation (release/produce news event that causes product/service to be placed in front of consumers 24/7), viral advertising (blogs like this one), embedded advertisers (person on that forum you like making slight mention of how product is super cool, has a few knocks, but is still the best available), and the good old commercial ensure that those TV programs will never, ever, go away. It's far too convenient a way to focus audiences and target consumers.[5] I always thought it would be smart for them to make a commercial in a very slow framerate so that way when people fast forwarded passed it it would play at normal speed. They could make it like a silent movie.[3]
If people are not really paying attention much of the time, it is not surprising that people are not bothering to fast forward through the commercials.[7] Maybe they don't know there is a Fast Forward button? I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on TV after I bought a DVR.[10] The DVR's greatest asset is the fast forward button, when watching an entertaining ad once or twice is now boring and we'll quickly skip it for the next shiny one, if at all.[3] I, for one, use the skip function or fast forward on my DVR with great enthusiasm.[11]
When I playback a show on DVR I do tend to skip through the commercials, but more often than not I use it to skip through the show. Of course, when the latter happens that show usually ends up being taken off my event list as well.[2] Often when fast-forwarding, the DVR skips back a few seconds so I usually catch the last commercial before the show starts again.[8]
I watch the funny ones, like the Mac vs. PC ones and trailers for episodes of shows I like. the best part of DVR is sports. the commercials and between the scenes garbage is 3/4 of the showing.[11] Most of the time I fast foreward through the adds, but like Gary M, if I see one that looks interesting, or is for a product that I am in the market for, I will go back and watch it. One thing it shows is that adds loose their value if they are shown too often.[10] Occassionally (approx. 1 show out of every 10) I'll see a commercial while fast forwarding that I want to see and will back it up to watch it.[8]
Right now, even when I'm watching a show, I pretty much avoid a commercial, either by reading the newspaper or magazine, or using the facilities, or flipping through the channels (remotes are great), or simply just hitting the mute button until the show comes back on.[2] I torrent all my shows. I'm not saying its legal nor am I suggesting it to anyone else, I'm just throwing out my method of tv watching. they ought to distribute all they're TV through torrent along with commercials, they'd be able to track it better.[5] In a one-hour show, I can knock out generally just under 20 minutes of advertisements. That means DVR makes TV watching around 30% more efficient.[7] When your VCR breaks down, you replace it with a computerized version. (I'm surprised so few comedians do hacky jokes about how difficult it is to program your DVR. The problems of recording a whole show on a DVR are almost exactly the same as with the VCR, even down to the problem that you often get the first or last minute cut off.) The networks also worried that the VCR would destroy them; these companies even went to court over it. Ultimately they learned to co-exist with the'' format.[9] I have discovered that Craig Ferguson is quite a funny fellow due to my DVR. Mine can only record two shows at a time, it would be nice if that number were three, but luckily with my Comcast and the various cable networks, scheduling here on the west coast allows repeats the same night (e.g., Jon Stewart later in the evening).[10] Maybe not. It might mean the show has a much better chance to grow next season than the other shows do. That all might be rubbish in the end, but who knows now? We are so far from really knowing what the DVR means as a tool for network execs (as opposed to as a tool for viewers) that I think it's too soon to come to a definitive conclusion.[2]
Whether you can use the numbers internally to predict anything, I don't know. I was just pointing out that whether it's possible or not isn't something that can yet be determined, but that even the current extra money that can be found in the numbers, even if it's only a 1% or 2% increase in ad revenue, is significant. It is free money if it's money you would not be getting if you were not beating the bushes for numbers that get you back some of the what decreased viewership is losing for you. I think we are so knee-jerk quick to react to the ridiculous claims by moronic fans that DVR numbers will be a panacea for their favorite showand they are totally ridiculous claimsthat we are being just as ridiculous by saying the numbers are totally meaningless. Even now in their infant stage they can used to produce significant revenue for the nets, as just a couple of percent in increased revenue means hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.[2] I think network ad revenue was something like 30 billion last year, so that's 1.2 billion dollars extra that just comes from crunching and hyping one new set of numbers.[2]
Network TV has gotten to the point where I refuse to watch any new shows. What's the point, they're all going to get cancelled on a cliffhanger that will never be resolved. [3] If you miss a network TV show you can watch it on HULU, but, most of the stuff on is garbage anyway so I don't really miss anything.[5]
When the same show is recorded, the only way to make it feel "live" and therefore OK to watch instead of doing laundry/taxes/whatever, is to let it play. That's what gets me — you can't track why people do what they do, and maybe they don't even know how they rationalize their habits. Brands spend tons on ad space based on assumptions that don't come close to covering the field, meaning there's a gap between perception and reality so broad that "commercials" really shouldn't exist as we know them.[6] Now it turns out that DVRs are actually helping to increase viewership of shows. When people can watch shows on their own schedule they watch more shows.[4] If enough people get to be like you the ratings will fall, the advertisers will pull out and the shows you want to watch won't get made anymore.[5]
Don't be confused that additional DVR viewing beyond the Live+SD period is going to be a big help to your show, because it isn't. Except perhaps our posts prior to this season specifically on DVR viewing where we did include LIVE ratings.[2] Right now, if shows A, B, C, & D are all averaging the same rating, yet only one is needed to fill a hole in next fall's schedule, then you would likely give DVR viewing a lot of weight. That only makes sense.[2]
For the middle of the DVR viewing curve broadcast primetime shows getting ~20% increases from DVR viewing, that 2% extra is not going to make a difference between renewal and cancellation.[2] While DVR viewing may never help a show financially in the short term, it might make a good tool for helping to pick which bubble shows get renewed.[2]
The commonly distributed stat is "Live+SD," which includes same-day viewing up till 3 a.m. the next morning. Gorman says after that initial group of watchers gets done with their DVR viewing, commercial ratings stay steady.[1] Pretty much all the "next day" ratings you've seen in the press since the fall of 2007 have been LIVE+SD (Same Day) ratings which measures live viewing plus DVR viewing through 3am the next day.[2]
I agree that fans blow DVR viewing all out of proportion, but I will also say that some of your argument presupposes a logical decision making process by networks that isn't entirely consistent with what we have seen from them in the past. It is possible that network execs do take DVR viewing into account despite it's relatively small current significance. It would not be the first time network execs had overrated something that didn't matter much.[2] With this the networks can limit DVR usage. It is not possible to skip ads anymore, recordings can be limited in time. This solves most issues with DVRs for the networks with disadvantages for the common viewer.[2] The problem now is that the assumption underlying the fear ''' namely that people with DVRs will skip all of the commercials ''' appears to be overblown. It has been clear for some time that not everyone with a DVR skips commercials.[4]
In a surprising number of homes, the TV is just on all the time. You see these unbelievable statistics about the number of hours Americans spend watching television. The reason for these numbers is that people are not really watching, or are not giving the TV their full attention.[7] I'll leave the commercials running when I'm doing something else while watching TV, which is most of the time.[11] Sometimes I will record a live program and start watching it 5-10 minutes later just so I can zip through commercials 'in real time'.[7] I will even delay watching a show live so I can watch it later and skip the junk. Mute is also a great function for those times when you are watching live abd don't want to listen to the drivel.[11] I don't generally have time to just sit down and watch a show straight through.[11]
As I have FIOS TV I could opt for a multiroom DVR so I can watch the recorded show on any box my hose, but, once again, most of the stuff on is crap.[5] I watch more TV since getting a DVR, just on my own schedule. Completely agree with this article.[3]
I love that, as soon as I saw the Times article, I knew to expect a proper fleshing out on TVbtN. The article sounded a little too triumphalist to me, so I guess my suspicions were right. Anyway, my question is: is it at least true that the networks don't have to fear the DVR? My sense is that, if it won't save them, it's hardly their biggest problem.[2] DVRs are a reality, so that money's never coming back. Calling DVRs evil and sticking their heads in the sand over them isn't something networks can afford to do right now. If they can bring some of the money back by finding something in the numbers that the DVRs are producing, then it behooves the nets to do it. It's one of few smart things they are doing.[2] I agree with you Beta that right now DVRs are costing networks more money than they are making for them.[2]
The number of users has expanded significantly over the past handful of years, as have the ways in which you can use your DVRs. That alone throws all previous data right out the window.[2] That 40% and 4% number is for Dollhouse specifically, most shows don't see DVR increases anywhere near that large (as a percentage).[2] Many are in the range of 7 to 12 percent, with some shows having increases of more than 20 percent when DVR ratings are added.[2]
Bill Gorman at TVByTheNumbers says the Times was snookered by broadcast PR, because all TV ratings actually include DVR watchers.[1] If you do not have a Nielson box, or a land-line to accept survey calls, it really doesn't affect TV ratings. That being said, Tivo does gather stats on DVR usage, as well as I would imagine most Cable and Satellite system provided DVRs. An example, Tivo announced that the Janet Jackson Superbowl fisaco garnered more replaying than any other moment they had gathered stats on up to that point.[5]
Even though I speed through commercials with my DVR, I'm still paying attention to them, and will go back and view one if it's new or looks interesting. I figure I pay more attention to them now than before when I would have gone off to the bathroom or kitchen during a commercial break.[10] If we ever get to a world where a majority of all primetime viewing happens via DVR you will see the LAST spot in every break become the most expensive. Have you noticed I'm sure you have that local news promos always come at the end of commercial breaks? It's because that's the least valuable part of the break. That will be a thing of the past as that real estate becomes more prized.[2]
The idea was that DVR viewing doesnt count because "everyone" was skipping the commercials.[9]
No mention of that by Carter. That's what's going to confuse people. All those increases for commercial viewing touted by Carter (via broadcast PR flacks) are all vs. LIVE viewing, not vs. LIVE+SD viewing.[2] We are all trying to figure what new media will be helpful to the business of television in the coming years. Well, perhaps shows with a lot of extra people DVRing them might benefit in the following seasons from an expanded LIVE audience.[2] Nearly half of DVR users let the advertisements play. While I found this shocking at first, I shouldn't have. Against almost every expectation, nearly half of all people watching delayed shows are still slouching on their couches watching messages about movies, cars and beer.[7] There's also the point that an act break kind of needs to have a minute or so of space before the next act; a viewer might not want to dive into the next act right away. It's why watching shows on DVD can be an unnatural experience.[9] And, we can watch all show = consumers win. That means they'll have to start producing 60 minutes of TV instead of 35 minutes or so.[5] Despite TV's ongoing popularity, I hope TV producers have a foreseeing eye. TV being like this, with advertisements and crappy writing and all, I can't blame Bryan for pirating his shows. At least that's commercial free.[5] TV viewers still like to get up and go to the bathroom during commercials. The TV plays on while they drain, or get some soda.[6]
You pause live TV when the commercials start, go take your pee break, get a fresh drink, whatever, then FF through the ads when you get back.[3] Sometimes an Apple commercial or an ad for a movie I haven't seen and am interested in get me to slow down and back up. Otherwise, I fast-forward, the same way I did before 2003 with programs I taped on my VCR.[8]
As for me, I abhor commercials of all types and at all times to the point where (content editing aside) I never watch movies with ads.[7] I probably only fast-forward about 40% of the time because I'm usually too distracted by my laptop to realize a commercial is on. Some ads like Sprint's during "Desperate Housewives" are practically DVR-proof because they're so seamless. Those Sprint commercials fooled me a couple of times, but now I look forward to them.[8] I fast forward through commercials but have been known to rewind for a commercial I like (a new Mac vs. PC commercial, for instance).[7] Gladys S. I usually fast forward through commercials, but I occassionally forget that it's not live and don't fast forward.[8] I usually try to fast forward, but if the commercial is a common one, the product being mentioned certainly registers in my brain as the cm whizzes by.[9] Rarely, however, do I stop the dishes or put down the Windex in order to fast forward through the commercials.[7]
It goes on like this, using anecdotal hypotheses and some data showing that — in the least — people sometimes don't fast forward through ads.[6] I am guessing people still instinctively get up and do something else during the commercials, like an expected intermission. If they then rewind too far and catch the ass-end of the ad does it count.[3] If there is a commercial that interests me, I'll actually rewind and watch it. Before Tivo/DVRs, I would either switch channels during a commercial or go to the bathroom or kitchen during them. Now, I actually see more commercials than I used to (albeit in fast-forward mode, but I still know what they are selling). Here's the trick to making people watch your commercials: make them entertaining and not annoying. Who are these people that aren't skipping the commercials? I thought that was one of the biggest reasons to have one.[5] The fear that sprang up then, and still exists today: people will never watch commercials again followed by implosion. It is also that more people seem content to sit through the commercials than networks once thought."[6]
It's just enough time to get in a product ID. I wonder if the networks have started charging a premium for those last 10 or 15 seconds of each commercial break.[2] You see the same one's, over and over, even multiple times during a single commercial break.[11]
Some "forget" to skip the commercials, some might enjoy the commercials, and some may just want to use the commercial break for traditional purposes, like going to the bathroom or getting something to eat or drink.[9]
Does Fox know I watched/recorded that episode of House? I usually record all my show JUST so I can skip the commercials.[5] I noticed a tactic some networks are using. They end their show 1 minute later (for example House on Fox). How does this affect anything? Lets say you record house at 9pm then want to record two shows at 10pm.[3] Well now you have THREE shows at 10pm (since house records till 10:01) and the DVR will not record one of the 10pm shows.[3]
That's what I thought, too, but it turns out that almost half of DVR users don't bother skipping the ads when playing back their shows.[11] I like the convenience of the DVR to never miss an episode of my favorite shows.[11] Then probably studio would think about have ads on during the show like the old day, they did.[5] The mini season before the strike was kind of boring, but did introduce some intriguing story possibilities. After they came back from the strike, though, it was just horrible. Character motivations were completely out of sync with their established backstory, and plot gimmicks became the standard. It was sad, because I really wanted to like this show.[5] Does passivity beget passivity, i.e. lazy people are just plain lazy, or does that percentage of people just really like ads.[7] Internet use is more active than TV, so banner ads might work for some people after all. Other users are more passive.[7] Maybe if so many people are passive about TV ads, the same behavior will apply to ads that interrupt internet surfing. Through this logic, a mix of internet ad type might be the best approach.[7]
In 2002, then CEO of Turner Broadcasting System Jamie Kellner famously equated using a DVR to skip ads with ''' theft.''' This was part of a wave of DVRs will kill TV hysteria.[4] You're right about DVR households being different. Since a majority of TV watchers still don't have DVR, it's hard to generalize.[2]
Did the TV industry ever have a problem with the mute button on TV remotes. seems along the same lines. Only if it was used during commercials, then they called it "stealing".[3] The entire purpose of the MPAA'''s misguided Selectable Output Control petition, as well as every other anti-piracy initiative, is to try and protect the DVD sales that have become the lifeblood of the movie industry. It looks like it may be time to add TV executives to the poster.[4] The death of American music in 1906 at the hands of the Player Piano, FM radio destroying the (shockingly still vibrant at the time in light of the success of the player piano) recorded music industry in 1925, the '''assault''' on the '''economic life''' of the movie industry by the VCR in 1982, and the '''noose''' around the neck of songwriters that would cease the creation of all records that was the recordable cassette tape in 1982. I like this poster so much because each quote represents someone successfully working in the content industry being completely unable to understand the difference between change, death, and opportunity. They also confuse the difference between the way a market is structured and the way a market must be structured.[4]
I'm definitely skipping the commercials and saving time when catching my favorite shows. [8] We also watch 30-minute shows 8 -minutes late to miss commercials and know to watch hour-long shows 15-minutes late.[8] I don't get the concept of passively sitting through commercials when you're watching a recorded show.[8] That way, there is no fast forwarding through commercials because there is only show = advertisers win.[5]
Although the commercials are rated for only three days, networks receive program ratings for playback over seven days ''' and the numbers go up again.[2] That 40% increase in program ratings from Live+SD to Live+7 for Dollhouse ? It helped advertising revenue by 4%.[1] If the 4% increase in ad revenue that you came up with is accurate, that's a healthy increase. I mean, anytime a company with those type of revenues can see a 4% increase when they didn't even have to do anything to make it happen, that's a good deal.[2]
I edited the post to specifically mention Dollhouse. My point is that it's not going to save the show, not that the extra revenue isn't welcome.[2]
I don't have cable. I download every television show I watch, even those I could watch in HD on broadcast television.[5] Every television show you watch, particularly on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, is bought and produced because it targets a certain audience that an advertiser is after. They exist so that advertising may be sold.[5]
Cable companies know every activity you do on a DVR. When you pause, play, stop, and record. They know when you change channels and what channels their subscribers don't watch. [5] When I had a DVR, I never watched the commercials, but because of how my DVR worked, I always caught the last bit of a commercial, which in my case, was the local station identification sound bite.[2] When networks and agencies were negotiating how DVR ratings would be sold the debate was always between Live ratings and C3 ratings.[2] Of course, DVR is just one part of the equation; the age of viewers and year-to-year ratings comparisons (with DVR) are probably more relevant, I suppose.[2] Until the cable/satellite companies are able to track all programs DVR'd by consumers, the ratings are not going to be accurate.[2]
Even in that context, though, I still think the Times story is worth noting. Broadcasters wanting to publicize their friendly feelings towards the DVR, formerly their "mortal foe," as the headline notes? Why would that be? It's got to signal a deeper fear of some other enemy.[1] With no one watching commercials, advertisers would not pay for advertising time and the entire system would self-destruct.[4] Quickly hitting the fast-forward button when commercials begin to minimize the time spent watching isn't in the equation.[7]
If half of the people are watching the commercials, give me the number of the sample. Are these people from red or blue states, city or country.[10] If Nielsen can figure out how to track ratings on a particular commercial, maybe advertisers would give us something worth watching.[7] In fact there is almost no increase in commercial ratings after the Live+SD period.[2] An extra 6% program viewing after 3 days, and certainly less of an increase in commercial viewing.[2]
If my eye catches some commercial my friends talked about being funny(like that Miller Lite e-harmony look-a-like) I'll stop and watch it. Otherwise, I skip everyone of them.[11] How many car commercials do we get per night? Couldn't tell you. I skip them. Maybe it's about time these businesses focus in spending their money on something the majority of us aren't going to skip.[3] I would rather know how many times the rewind button is pressed in the 2-3 minutes following a commercial.[3]
I have 2 video recorders, and on friday nights I run both of them because there are several programs on at the same time that I watch, while on wed. there isn't anything that I watch.[10]
I'll be watching Monday Night Football in a couple of hours in very nearly HD for free care of nameless strangers. $35 bucks a month and I have all the digital entertainment I could ever hope for, in HD, as soon as it airs or is released. I also use this same connection to send emails to congresspeople to support net neutrality. Doesn't get much better than this. That's fine and all. You do understand that this system works BECAUSE most people aren't like you. [5] When the syndicating network ham-handedly chops off a good chunk of the show, you're better off not watching any of it.[3] Most nights I am watching one show and DVR'ing another show. It usually takes until the weekend to catch up just watched Biggest Loser yeterday afternoon (Sunday).[2]
There's a psychological aspect to TV viewing that should probably be mentioned, based in the fact that most "watching" is a guilty pleasure that takes away from other activities.[6]
Head researchers for television networks are starting to call DVRs a ''' frenemy ''' of network television, or even going so far as to admit ''' the DVR is a good thing for network television.''' [4]
SOURCES
1. Broadcasters Heart DVRs: NYT Buys it, Others Call BS
2. NY Times Sucked In By Broadcast PR Again, DVR Confusion Awaits - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com
3. Once Again: DVRs Not Killing TV, But Helping It | Techdirt
4. DVR: the New Player Piano | Public Knowledge
5. Are DVRs actually going to save the network TV model?
6. Study Revealing DVRs Aren't Hurting So Bad Fails to Ask Important Question - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
7. 46% Watch DVR With Commercials - The Atlantic Business Channel
8. Still Zapping Through Commercials? Decoder Wants to Know - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
9. DVR Viewers Don't Skip The Commercials - TV Guidance - Macleans.ca
10. Quoted: Because fast-forwarding just takes too much effort | Good Morning Silicon Valley
11. Survey: Nearly half of DVR users still watch the commercials : Ben Patterson : Yahoo! Tech
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on 46% Watch DVR With Commercials by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
