Surprise! Online viewing is not all additive
Cory Bergman July 29th, 2008
Approximately 20 percent of TV show viewing now occurs on the web, reveals a new study by Integrated Media Measurement (.pdf download) that had participants track their media consumption habits via their cell phones. Of that number, 50 percent of the online viewing is a replacement to TV viewing, 31.3 percent is catch-up viewing and 18.7 percent is fill-in viewing. From the report: “In May, for the first time, data show that a significant portion of the online audience for primetime episodic content is NOT also watching some portion of the show on television…. Strikingly, there is no real demographic difference between online viewers who have given up television and those who are still using the Internet as a way to fill-in for lost viewing or even grab additional views of the content seen on TV. This suggests that the migration of consumption from one platform to another is only a matter of time for all of the online ’snackers.’” The IMMI study also said the web is beginning to challenge DVRs for watching primetime TV programming.
Some may question that this study is overstating the effect, especially since the panel focused on larger cities. But I’ll remind everyone that few broadcasters accurately anticipated the rapid adoption of DVRs. Similarly, I think watching TV shows online will catch on with a similar rapid rate. The question, of course, is what NBCU’s Jeff Zucker warned a few months ago for broadcasters to be careful to avoid trading “analog dollars for digital pennies.” Now that it looks like not all online viewing is additive, it will be interesting to see how this evolves.
Also, as I wrote last week, as online video becomes nearly as big as a platform as DVRs for watching TV programming on demand, it’s time for DVRs to step up and become more like the web. I think DVRs with their old-fashioned, clunky interfaces — and the fact you have to anticipate everything you want to watch and record it ahead of time — is accelerating the shift from DVRs to the web. Image quality isn’t as big of a deal as many people in the TV industry believe it is. In the end, convenience rules.
14 Comments Add your own
1. Dan | July 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Not that I disagree with the convenience assessment,
but as far as image quality goes, how do you account for the millions of people buying HDTVs? On the one hand we are told “nobody cares about what the program looks like”, then we are told millions of people are spending a grand or more to purchase new HD sets.
Is production quality no longer something to strive for in features and TV production? When someone buys a $2 HD download or a $20 Blue-Ray disk, do they care what it looks like? Or is it mostly from the online web people
that we hear no one cares about quality?
I remember the auto industry saying the same thing about hybrids. “No one is interested” when the fact they couldn’t manufacture them certainly looks like where their comments were coming from.
Dan
2. Anonymous | July 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
@Dan,
Sure, people claim to care about quality. But usually, people don’t know quality.
Take my father in law, for example. He spent several thousand dollars on a HUGE HDTV a few months ago — it literally spans from one wall to another in his basement. I sat down and let him show me how amazing the picture was. He was so proud talking about how much better the picture quality was that I didn’t have the heart to tell him that we were watching a low-resolution 4:3 program that was stretched to 16:9.
I don’t know any non-TV-industry people that can tell me the difference between DTV and HDTV. Try this: ask some proud HDTV owners which looks better: 1080i or 720p. Very few will talk about how interlacing might interact with certain kinds of content, and one in a thousand will say anything about bandwidth allocations and sub-channels.
Convenience is something people can easily distinguish, while video quality isn’t. I’d rather build a business on the one than the other.
3. Anonymous | July 30th, 2008 at 12:57 am
It’s not all addictive either. You can’t bootstrap the computer end of it quickly enough either so it remains AM radio.
4. TR @ WSB | July 30th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Yup, we’re living this one. About to cancel the cable because (a) we figured out how to get the digital channels over the air (and there are some fun options around here on the subchannels); (b) what few shows the guys in the house (who unlike me still like to watch TV) care about, they can find online; (c) the live government meetings I need to watch for business reasons are streamed online. So the $60-plus that even sort-of-basic cable is costing us, just makes no sense any more.
5. Hussman | July 30th, 2008 at 4:53 am
#4 is the wave of the future.
6. Dave | July 30th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I’m also dropping cable… I don’t need all of those channels and if they’re not gonna go a la carte, then I will.
7. dcdave | July 30th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I watch most of my entertainment programming through Hulu.com. I have basic cable too, but it’s piped through my mac to an HDTV with an EyeTV hybrid. Picks up ClearQAM, so I get the local HD channels, is a full DVR and will convert and push anything I record to my iPod with the press of a button.
Programmed TV should definitely be on-demand (and providers should figure out how to monetize the digital side instead of whining that less people watch in the most inconvenient of ways).
There will always be a place for live TV, and news, but how it’s delivered is a completely different matter.
8. Nick | July 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Just remember as more things shift online, the cable and telephone companies are working on bandwidth caps to keep you from giving up your “cable” tv. see URL
9. Contrarian | July 30th, 2008 at 7:09 am
You guys are nuts.
I’d rather watch an HD signal from satellite on a 50″ screen than some flash streaming files from a computer.
I *do* care about quality.
10. Dave | July 30th, 2008 at 8:04 am
No Contra… I’m not nuts, I’m poor.
Welcome to the marketplace.
11. Anonymous | July 30th, 2008 at 9:46 am
What was the cable company that tried to have a “central” DVR that recorded everything, and could be accessed by subscribers? Either they were sued or just threatened, but they had to pull the plug. Too bad.
12. Anonymous | July 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I’m a 21 year old college student living in an apartment. The cable company sent a notice a few weeks ago that the rate for BASIC and FAMILY cable will be jumping $4 a month starting next month. That pushes the total bill to near $80 (that’s WITH 6 month locked in promo pricing). I’m switching apartments on Friday and I’m pretty sure I won’t be a cable subscriber. I’m going to have an internet connection (probably split with my friend next door), and will try getting all of my content from the internet. I’ve got a slingbox hooked up at my parents’ house, hulu, and torrents. I just found out about TED yesterday - torrent episode downloader - it’s like a tivo that organizes shows and downloads the right torrentz on its own.
I would rely more on hulu and similar sites alone, but the cable companies don’t provide fast enough internet. I hope FiOs keeps spreading. Free market enterprises providing VALUED services - I’ll pay for that any day.
13. Anonymous again | July 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Forgot to mention,
The convenience of sitting down quick to watch a show or the news while eating lunch and having a little bit of free time occasionally is nice, but I’m beginning to think it isn’t worth this bulk cable company subscription.
14. Anonymous | August 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I would rather have a great, high quality digital source mangled by analog snow and ghosts than a great STL feeding a UHF station that never satisfies because the staff are groping about trying to make new equipment work ON AIR and the playback is the weakest link, NOT the signal path to the set.
This really ain’t your father’s TV industry.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed