Update: If I understand the data posted directly by Nielsen, the DVR viewing actually does have a bigger revenue impact than I'd originally thought. In the post below it seemed the C3 numbers were being compared to live program viewing and not live commercial viewing. But it looks like I got that wrong, and it does change the way I think about the importance of DVR viewing, though not necessarily the Live+7 DVR viewing.
original post below:
Don't read too much into these apples-to-pears comparisons where live PROGRAM ratings are compared to C3 COMMERCIAL ratings (live plus 3 days worth of DVR viewing). When it comes to the Live+SD (same day DVR viewing) program ratings that are commonly reported, C3 numbers went DOWN, not up...
Nielsen data for premiere week alone has three NFL games at the top of the C3 ratings list for the 18-49 year old demographic group. As expected with live sports none of them got much of a lift from the live number and the C3 number which measures the average rating of commercials in a given show with three days of playback added in.
The top show, Fox’s NFL Sunday Single was up two tenths of a rating point to 6.8. CBS NFL National scored the same, while NBC’s Sunday Night Football was up just a tenth of a point at 6.4.
When it comes to top entertainment programming Fox’s House rose more than a full rating point up to 6.3 from 5.2. ABC’s Grey’s the fifth biggest show on the C3 list for premiere week rose from a 5.1 live rating to a 6.1 rating on C3.
Those all sound well and good, but it's not as good as you might believe. Why? Because LIVE program viewing is rarely reported. That data isn't used at all except in the context of DVR viewing. And here's what the above story didn't tell you: based on the Live+SD program ratings that are commonly posted the C3 commercial ratings WENT DOWN. House from 6.7 to a 6.3 and Grey's from a 6.7 to a 6.1.
The good news is that DVR viewers are obviously watching some commercials -- the bad news is there is no real benefit to the networks of adding in a couple of days worth of DVR viewing when comparing the commercial ratings to the live plus same day DVR program ratings. The Live+SD program ratings appear to be a fairly good proxy of what the C3 ratings will look like.
I really wished we the public got to see that data.
Hahah. Agree with mswood! When I first read the headline my reaction was ” ‘Reported’? No one reports C3 data!”
I obviously agree with mswood, too, but on the other hand I don’t particularly blame Nielsen for not giving away the Golden Goose. We’ll have to be happy with the occasional eggs. But the more data like this I see, the more I am fine with L+SD as a standard.
The C3 would be more interesting to me if they compared the C3 numbers to the C (live commercial ratings) but that’s an egg we don’t get. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never seen a single data point for live commercial ratings.
I feel like there was a report last year comparing C to C3. Though it may have just been Live to C3, and I’m remembering it wrong.
The more I keep looking at these ratings for broadcast, the more I keep asking myself this question:
How the hell are they gonna come up with more revenue?
Between audiences moving to Cable and now more and more viewers DVR-ing a show, and therefore skipping commercials, you have fewer and fewer watchers for an actual live broadcast. And all your revenue comes from commercials. So how do you solve this problem?
Truthfully, I don’t think they can. Not unless broadcast nets radically change their business model. You wouldn’t have any ideas on this subject, would you TVBTN guys?
Godfather; we have ideas and have written about them often, though generally agree the business models will be radically changed and/or they will make less money.
Our primary idea is that networks should provide ALL shows On Demand, with commercials and disable fast-forwarding functionality. Cable services should offer this at no extra cost (DVR, or fast-forward capabilities for on-demand would cost extra). We feel this would stave off a lot of the migration to DVR.
The question is, what motivation would the cable companies have to provide On Demand free of charge?
1.) happy customers (I know, I’m a dreamer!)
2.) an ad slot or two or five for the local ad sales teams. The bet is that people will tolerate the commercials in return for convenience and zero extra cost over what they’re already paying (assuming they’re already on digital cable with a set top box). Adding 30 seconds to 3 more minutes of commercials probably won’t change things much.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to for the Cable Co’s and Tivo to have an agreement with the Broadcast nets that disable FF options on DVRs? It wouldn’t take much to implement a change like that considering DVRs already have DRM (Digital Rights Management) flags that can prevent duplicating programs, a simple flag to disable FF shouldn’t be too hard to do.
I know my solution wouldn’t be consumer friendly, but it’s not like they want us not watching the commercials anyway.
I dont think it would be simple, Tommy.
most people don’t have a DVR yet. Two out of three homes don’t have them. the “On Demand with commercials” would be a convenience feature and at $0 cost, will likely have much better uptake than DVR.
People who PAY for DVR (especially people who BOUGHT DVR hardware like TiVo) will scream bloody hell.
In a perfect world the networks probably should get $$ compensation from monthly DVR fees. It’s not a perfect world, but I could see the cable companies ultimately rejiggering carriage deals, especially for broadcast networks where the networks get a bigger piece of the monthly cable subscription fees than they currently do.
i dont get this, does this really matter? Cant u jus put them all together when the final numbers come in and not tell anyone?
I see what your saying about customers that have paid for DVR hardware. And I was thinking on the lines of revenue lost by DVR viewing. In the long run I can see a combination of all of the above, On Demand with commercials, DVR’s that don’t FF, and new carriage fee contracts.
The DVR flag would have to be applied to new hardware only, with older hardware “grandfathered” in so to speak. Eventually people will want to upgrade to, HD DVRs, more storage etc….
If they could do the OnDemand deal it would pretty much render the DVR obsolete (other than satellite customers)
Small carriage fee discounts, Julia, for those cable systems that don’t permit flash forwarding of on-demand programming – and NBCU, ABC/Disney, and FOX all have additional cable properties that they could leverage slight discounts in their carriage fees as well for extra leverage…
…and in-program product placement will help, as the sponsors did during radio and early TV days (and as Chuck is doing with Subway now) – and that would not change the business model that much, although how much revenue could really be gained is a question…
…and, don’t laugh, but if 4 million Dollhouse fans put up $10 per season, that would raise $40 million, which – even at $2 million per episode (too high, I know – but making a point here), would about pay for a whole season…
…if Joss is as good as JBF believes, he could raise the funding for a new show, sight unseen
…oh my word – I can see Sally Struthers now
“…this episode of “Dollhouse” is sponsored in part by a grant from the TV By The Numbers Foundation – unspinning the Nielsens since 2007…”
…along with a scroll at the bottom of the screen listing all the contributors (JBF in glowing gold)
The_GodfatherSJP, the next revenue source for broadcast networks is carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
Off-topic: this season a 3.0 in 18-49 is better than a 3.0 6 years ago.
Could you have some numbers about the % of 18-49 in the total audience of a show like we have in the past?
So how come shows with high DVR viewings still get cancelled or are in danger of getting cancelled. Cause networks care more about who watches the shows live and not using a DVR to watch them.