Are DVRs good for network TV?

[Lathum]

Obviously most people skip over the commercials when using their DVRs but on the flip side it allows people to watch multiple programs that are on the same time. People no longer have to choose between say, CSI and Survivor anymore since they can DVR them.

I wonder if JIMG or anyone has any insight into that.

[chadritt]

We were always taught in school that the network is selling viewer eyeballs to advertisers and the shows are just their method of sale. I doubt the network is thrilled you're able to watch their show if you dont watch the ads. Though, having thought for a minute, i guess if it lead to increased DVD sales they would care.

[DaddyTorgo]

dvd's are dying

[MizzouRah]

Give me AT&T Uverse! We live too far out for that!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Without advertiser eyeballs, the shows have minimal value to the network. And any gains from time shifted viewing of a CSI or Survivor come at the cost of viewers that would have been watching something else (theoretically at least) so that becomes robbing Peter to pay Paul at some point.

What I really see it doing as much as anything at this point is speeding the inevitable slide of the traditional broadcast networks into the same size as the major cable networks and closing the gap between the two types.

After seeing some numbers I pulled for a project last week, I seriously wonder how much longer some of the existing cable networks are even going to be around or how viable they are as advertising vehicles for broad market products at this point. The number of viewers for average programming on several cable networks that you would definitely know (i.e I'm not talking about the bottom rung of the cable ladder here) are so astonishingly small that the ROI from advertising simply doesn't exist & a lot of the money is being spent out of habit & desperation at this point. Eventually I think advertisers are going to have to wise up about their spending or go under themselves.

On that same path, right now I don't see any really good bang for the advertising dollar in any medium, virtually everything has a pretty severe to downright fatal flaw. And that's a hell of a thing for me to have to say considering how I make my living.

[RainMaker]

I'd argue with Jon about live sports. Don't think the DVR can kill that.

I do think we'll move more to a subscription model where you'll have less commercials and the cable networks will make their money off subscribers (ala HBO). Most networks will offer VOD so you can watch your shows at anytime. Cable bills will be a little higher but not having to see many commercials will help cover the cost.

That of course is bad news for network TV. I don't feel bad for them though as they had a virtual monopoly on the airwaves for decades and any loss in eyeballs is due to competition beating them out.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

After seeing some numbers I pulled for a project last week, I seriously wonder how much longer some of the existing cable networks are even going to be around or how viable they are as advertising vehicles for broad market products at this point. The number of viewers for average programming on several cable networks that you would definitely know (i.e I'm not talking about the bottom rung of the cable ladder here) are so astonishingly small that the ROI from advertising simply doesn't exist & a lot of the money is being spent out of habit & desperation at this point. Eventually I think advertisers are going to have to wise up about their spending or go under themselves.

I've wondered about that too. Then again, the cable networks squeeze so much value out of every minute of programming that I imagine that's the only way the model works. Whereas NBC only fills an hour or hour and a half from one episode of 30 Rock, Bravo can fill 20 hours of air time with one episode of Top Chef. That's where I think DVRs have helped network TV vs. cable since it's easier than ever to timeshift network shows whereas cable has helped you timeshift by reairing episodes multiple times during the week.

But I think you're right -- a lot of advertisers spend money on TV because they feel like they have to. I don't think there is a lot of discrimination right now.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On that same path, right now I don't see any really good bang for the advertising dollar in any medium, virtually everything has a pretty severe to downright fatal flaw. And that's a hell of a thing for me to have to say considering how I make my living.

+1

TV has a lot of flaws but and drawbacks but it's still a powerful medium. Internet advertising is still a disaster. Radio, newspaper, magazines, you name it. The world is so segmented that there is no easy way to reach a mass audience. It's not 1975 when you could reach 20 percent of the country in prime time on one network. Most nights you're lucky to reach 3 percent. But ad money has to go somewhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd argue with Jon about live sports. Don't think the DVR can kill that.

I treat live sports as such a separate entity that to be honest it didn't even cross my mind for a second while I was addressing the subject. Probably should have but I didn't, it just bears so little resemblance to general programming that I mentally segment it as its own animal.

Cable bills will be a little higher but not having to see many commercials will help cover the cost.

I'd say the saturation point for that has already gotten pretty close to maxxed out, we're definitely in disagreement on that. The majority of the market isn't going to absorb much higher bills -- the economy simply won't support it -- which in turn reduces the subscriber base, which means even higher bills for the remaining subscribers, etc. That could actually bode well for the traditional broadcast networks, as any substantial move toward higher costs will drive unwired viewers back to them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say the saturation point for that has already gotten pretty close to maxxed out, we're definitely in disagreement on that. The majority of the market isn't going to absorb much higher bills -- the economy simply won't support it -- which in turn reduces the subscriber base, which means even higher bills for the remaining subscribers, etc. That could actually bode well for the traditional broadcast networks, as any substantial move toward higher costs will drive unwired viewers back to them.

Something has to budge though. There is huge demand for television entertainment and we aren't going to see less supply.

I guess my other theory is that we'll see a big drop in the costs to produce shows. We're seeing it in a way with the influx of reality shows which are relatively cheap to produce. But if people get sick of reality TV, maybe actors, writers, etc will see a pay cut.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But I think you're right -- a lot of advertisers spend money on TV because they feel like they have to. I don't think there is a lot of discrimination right now.

Honestly I haven't seen a great deal of good judgment applied by advertisers in my entire career. Difference is that the margin for error is smaller than it was in previous decades.

TV has a lot of flaws but and drawbacks but it's still a powerful medium. Internet advertising is still a disaster. Radio, newspaper, magazines, you name it. The world is so segmented that there is no easy way to reach a mass audience. It's not 1975 when you could reach 20 percent of the country in prime time on one network. Most nights you're lucky to reach 3 percent. But ad money has to go somewhere.

A lot of that money is simply gone, that's the "somewhere" it went. And since none of you are clients at the moment, I can speak freely & say that a lot more of it probably ought to be staying in people's pockets than actually does. The amount of wasted money thrown down dry holes staggers even my fertile imagination sometimes.

The more webvertising I deal with, the more apt I discover the word "disaster" really is. It's a niche with more hucksters, con artists, and crooks than I've ever seen & probably better than half of them rely on the ignorance of the advertiser to make their living. Sooner or later they do get smarter (or get weeded out) & that's one reason the niche is hitting a plateau.

While the feedback from it can be more tangible than some other mediums (hard to beat X ad received Y clicks & directly produced Z orders worth XYZ dollars), the inconsistent performance I see produced by virtually identical scenarios makes it a roulette medium. Identical ads to identical bases producing wild swings in performance seemingly based on nothing, not even the phases of the moon or the number of vowels in the month. And that's if the numbers you're getting back are accurate, apples to apples, and haven't been blatantly straight up faked.

Print of any type is dead for all but a relative handful of niches (we've got a client in one of those niches at the moment actually, reminding me why I hate dealing with print reps but I digress), radio is so fragmented in most top 100 markets that reach & frequency is tough ... which all adds up to a big reason that TV remains a big player. It's not all that hot itself but at the same time it's better in one or more ways than most of the competition.

The improvement that's needed (with the exception of online which remains surprisingly cheap in most places) is for the price of most of it to be cut by half or more to get it back into the realm of reasonable ROI. But if that happens, then the mediums cease to exist altogether because they can't operate in the red any more than the advertisers can.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Something has to budge though. There is huge demand for television entertainment and we aren't going to see less supply.

I disagree, I think the supply has largely peaked for several reasons:

-- Multi platform programs. We're already seeing a lot of network originals repurposed into cable in ways that aren't traditional syndication. 60 Minutes Classics running on CBS owned cable networks, old Datelines on MSNBC, etc. I expect that to become even more common.

-- The efficiency of syndicated reruns vs originals in many cases. TNT doesn't run those L&O episodes into the ground just for the hell of it, the numbers remain decent even after all these years. Same for shows like In The Heat of the Night and the like. kcchief's point about the bazillion airings of the same episode of any new show is well made too.

-- The saturation point has to be reached for networks eventually, I think it pretty much has been already at least if you expect the network to be financially viable. And that means demand will level off at best, start to drop if I'm right about the other points.

I guess my other theory is that we'll see a big drop in the costs to produce shows. We're seeing it in a way with the influx of reality shows which are relatively cheap to produce. But if people get sick of reality TV, maybe actors, writers, etc will see a pay cut.

I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand if the demand drops then there's an excess supply of talent so the prices should drop. On the other hand, I don't get a sense that a lot of the egos involved are adjusted to the reality of being paid less today than they were five years ago. And I can't imagine them dropping far enough to make scripted shows more profitable than a marginally successful unscripted show.

[JediKooter]

I don't think DVRs are bad for network tv. We were a Nielson family for about 4 years (up until earlier this year) and they are able to still monitor what tv shows you are watching even if you DVR'd them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I can't imagine them dropping far enough to make scripted shows more profitable than a marginally successful unscripted show.

more's the shame. so sick of goddamn reality tv 24-7

[Coder]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

more's the shame. so sick of goddamn reality tv 24-7

Now you're making the assumption that "reality"-shows aren't scripted..

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd argue with Jon about live sports. Don't think the DVR can kill that.

If it weren't for sports, I wouldn't need a TV at all. There's only one show all week I try to watch (House).

DVR is a god send for football. I can watch every play of a college or pro game in about 45 minutes. The play clock is perfect for the 30 second forward button. Other sports only save you the time for commercials and intermissions.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course I love DVRs (though more for the being able to watch a bunch of shows while actually being able to go out and have a life rather than the skipping commercials aspect), but I've always wondered what it means for TV in general. It definitely seems like a "be careful what you wish for" type of device, where it allows people to skip commericals, which probably will have the effect of making more networks go under due to less advertising money... especially as DVRs become more prevalent.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coder

Now you're making the assumption that "reality"-shows aren't scripted..

oh no, i fully acknowledge that they are at the LEAST "directed."

but it's more that i would rather a good "cop drama" or "medical drama" or "buddy comedy" than "x number of people displaying a talent, or being put into some type of challenging situation" type of thing.

i don't care about other REAL people and their "directed drama" - i want to see some storytelling and character development (which you don't get on reality shows aside from the vaguest stereotypes).

Only reality shows I'll watch are the cooking ones - TopChef, Kitchen Nightmares, Hell's Kitchen.

No Survivor, no Idol, no Big Brother, no Mole, no Amazing Race, no Biggest Loser, no _____ (fill in the blank). It's all the same.

[Kodos]

Aside from Survivor and Idol, all other reality shows can go away.

[cuervo72]

Too much new content, not enough syndication. Scrap half of these cable "networks" that are out there, and replace them with stations like the old Ch. 48 that existed in Philly in the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Put on repeats of Batman, Gilligan's Island, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie. Sprinkle in Mighty Mouse and Woody Woodpecker (where in the heck have they gone, anyway?)



(ok, I don't know if something like this would really fly, although Nick at Nite and TV Land used to program more like this, before they started mucking around with other stuff)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

oh no, i fully acknowledge that they are at the LEAST "directed."

but it's more that i would rather a good "cop drama" or "medical drama" or "buddy comedy" than "x number of people displaying a talent, or being put into some type of challenging situation" type of thing.

i don't care about other REAL people and their "directed drama" - i want to see some storytelling and character development (which you don't get on reality shows aside from the vaguest stereotypes).

Only reality shows I'll watch are the cooking ones - TopChef, Kitchen Nightmares, Hell's Kitchen.

No Survivor, no Idol, no Big Brother, no Mole, no Amazing Race, no Biggest Loser, no _____ (fill in the blank). It's all the same.

I don't recall whether I've asked you this before but I know it's crossed my mind before so just in case ... I don't get any sense that this has happened but I don't quite get why you haven't ended up with a best-available-program viewing philosophy similar to my own.

There's a definite vibe of dissatisfaction with the state of TV when you post about the subject & we seem to avoid the same shows but I haven't picked up on anything that leads me to believe you're finding much happiness with the alternatives. As different as we may be on some things in life, it strikes me plausible that we ought to be relatively similar with regard to finding alternatives to viewing.

I don't lament the absence of anything on TV at this point because I'm able to find enough programs that I enjoy equally or more than anything I'd be wishing for. For me a diet of Ghost Hunters, procedural episodes that I either haven't seen/don't remember that well/can happily watch again, and random stray programs on History, Military, Discovery, etc. pretty much fill as many hours as I need filled by TV.

Our choice in programs might very well be different but for some reason I have a tough time getting my head around your apparently inability to find satisfying alternative programming. You just strike me as someone who ought to be able to find a fairly ample supply of things to watch that don't leave you wanting more and it's perplexed me more than once that this doesn't seem to be the case.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

oh no, i fully acknowledge that they are at the LEAST "directed."

but it's more that i would rather a good "cop drama" or "medical drama" or "buddy comedy" than "x number of people displaying a talent, or being put into some type of challenging situation" type of thing.

i don't care about other REAL people and their "directed drama" - i want to see some storytelling and character development (which you don't get on reality shows aside from the vaguest stereotypes).

Only reality shows I'll watch are the cooking ones - TopChef, Kitchen Nightmares, Hell's Kitchen.

No Survivor, no Idol, no Big Brother, no Mole, no Amazing Race, no Biggest Loser, no _____ (fill in the blank). It's all the same.

I understood that.. I was being a little bit sarcastic to display my utter hatred for reality shows . You and I seem to be on the same page .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Too much new content, not enough syndication. Scrap half of these cable "networks" that are out there, and replace them with stations like the old Ch. 48 that existed in Philly in the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Put on repeats of Batman, Gilligan's Island, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie. Sprinkle in Mighty Mouse and Woody Woodpecker (where in the heck have they gone, anyway?)

Ah the independent broadcast stations that cobbled together a lineup from whatever scraps they could find cheaply. They actually do still exist in a number of markets & occasionally find some relative success in timeslots here or there.

Instead of individual syndication the model has shifted a bit toward acquiring programs from aggregators such as RTN (Retro Television) who provide shows like Kojak, Adam-12, McHale's Navy and The Rockford Files and ThisTV with a lineup that includes Perry Mason, The Patty Duke Show, Mister Ed and The Outer Limits.

In addition to the independent stations that remain, these lineups are also somewhat common on the digital sub-carriers of broadcast network affiliates (such as market leader WSB-TV in Atlanta, which is the local ABC affiliate but runs RTN on their D2 channel).

The end of the shows you mentioned though came as demographics shifted. I checked your bio, you're about 6 years younger than me so we're in the same relative ballpark for programs. So when we remember these shows from the 60's airing in the 70's/80's, they were 10-20 years old and we were 12-24 years old, and the adults watching them had the corresponding distance from them. The same thing happens today except 10-20 year old shows are now Seinfeld (debuted 20 years ago), Mad About You (debuted 17 yrs ago), and Everybody Loves Raymond (debuted 13 yrs ago).

(ok, I don't know if something like this would really fly, although Nick at Nite and TV Land used to program more like this, before they started mucking around with other stuff)

See the aforementioned demographic shift, it's why they started mucking around. When NaN launched in 1985, it was with shows from 20-30 years before like The Donna Reed Show. Now 20 yrs old shows are series like Roseanne, The Nanny, and Murphy Brown.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, part of me realizes that. Don't really like it, but I realize it.

Aren't some folks that watched those shows still around? You'd think someone would still want to watch them.

Brings up an interesting question moving forward though...what shows are going to be the future's syndication? It seems like the cycle is shortening (George Lopez goes off the air and immediately lands on N@N), and the number of programs available is shrinking. Our viewing habits now* could affect what happens down the road.


* as you found, I'm in the demographic that still followed network TV. I remember watching shows like All in the Family, MASH, Cheers, Cosby, etc. My kids? They pretty much never watch network TV. They're not going to have any sitcoms to fondly remember when they get older.

[Kodos]

They need to put The Wonder Years back on TV. Or at least release DVDs. I realize there is a problem because of all the music on the show. Wish they could resolve that issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Aren't some folks that watched those shows still around? You'd think someone would still want to watch them.

Sadly, even you're aging out of the demo that anybody seems to give a damn about. Wait til you pass 40 & it gets really bad.

Brings up an interesting question moving forward though...what shows are going to be the future's syndication? It seems like the cycle is shortening (George Lopez goes off the air and immediately lands on N@N), and the number of programs available is shrinking. Our viewing habits now* could affect what happens down the road.

There's probably some clues in the list of shows that debuted in syndication in Fall 09


First-run debuts include Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? Open House (July ’09), Street Court, WWE SmackDown, Smash Cuts and talk shows from Wendy Williams (July ’09) and Brian McKnight.

They’re joined by off-network hits The Office, My Name Is Earl, Everybody Hates Chris, The Unit, Grey’s Anatomy and Bones, and classics America’s Funniest Home Videos and Star Trek: The Next Generation.

They're not going to have any sitcoms to fondly remember when they get older.

Nope, but with tv viewing among 6-11 year olds at its highest point in a decade they'll likely end up watching recut episodes of American Idol as well as (either in syndication or on cable) iCarly, Suite Life On Deck, Wizards of Waverly Place, and Phineas & Ferb.

[molson]

Speaking not just of networks, but television/dvr generally, isn't the obvious solution a further evolution from the "commercial break" format of television that has existed for what, for 50 years?

When I briefly worked in TV advertising sales 10 years ago (from the national sales representative perspective) it seemed like the new thing was more creative sponsorship opportunities and deals. The local networks, and their news, was at the front of that. I thought TV was changing, but 10 years later, even with the onslaught of DVR, it's still pretty much exactly the same.

SNL did experiment with a one-sponsor/limited commericial interuption show a few weeks ago - I wonder how numbers worked out for that.

It doesn't seem, with all the media we consume, that it would be that hard to get eyeballs for product messages in creative, non-obnoxious ways. There needs to be a revolution of thought there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

SNL did experiment with a one-sponsor/limited commericial interuption show a few weeks ago - I wonder how numbers worked out for that.

They did? News to me, but then again I don't watch SNL so I guess it would be.

One of the big problems, aside from the dollars and cents of such a move, is higlighted in this snippet from an article on the buy.

NBC is working with advertisers who want more creative ways to reach consumers, said Marianne Gambelli, President of NBC Universal Network Ad Sales. Consumers are limiting their spending in the recession, and advertisers are doing the same as their sales fall.

The network has done sponsorships or limited-commercial episodes before, say for season launches of shows like "Heroes." The integration has to be seamless, she said. If it comes off as a commercial, consumers won't buy it.

"You want something authentic," she said. "You want it to look original. You don't want it to look like you're selling something."

There's the rub. You are selling something, and to an increasingly ad-conscious consumer. And sometimes downright ad-hostile consumer.

Online reaction to the spot seemed to vary from "they managed to make the spot portion so short (by pairing it with a classic SNL moment) that it couldn't be easily skipped over" to "I was so annoyed every time they put their damned logo on the screen that I couldn't stand it".

[Passacaglia]

Why not just advertise stuff on the bottom of the screen, with a slightly taller ticker? People won't feel like they're being 'tricked' into watching ads through product placement in the actual show, networks won't have to worry about the ads being skipped, and viewers (well, 54% of them at least) won't have to bother fast-forwarding. And football games won't have to take so long with no TV timeouts.

[Kodos]

We'd have to watch TV on FireFox with Adblocker if they did that.

[ISiddiqui]

People get really pissed off over those bottom of the screen ads as well. Just look at TV forums.

Though its not a bad option.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

People get really pissed off over those bottom of the screen ads as well. Just look at TV forums.

Though its not a bad option.

People get pissed at regular commercials too. DVR people just skip them. People would either get used to it or stop watching TV. They won't stop watching TV.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Kodos

We'd have to watch TV on FireFox with Adblocker if they did that.

Or I guess they could just cover the bottom of the screen with something. Although maybe shows could get fancy and switch it between the bottom and the top. But yeah, people could probably 'mod' their TVs with something that would let them block it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If it weren't for sports, I wouldn't need a TV at all. There's only one show all week I try to watch (House).

DVR is a god send for football. I can watch every play of a college or pro game in about 45 minutes. The play clock is perfect for the 30 second forward button. Other sports only save you the time for commercials and intermissions.

I'm not the opposite. I can't DVR a live sports event because I know that the result has happened. It's completely mental but still something I can't deal with.

My brother came over late for the Bears game a couple weeks ago and I just paused it at noon. We eventually caught up to the live telecast but it just felt weird rooting for stuff that already happened.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree, I think the supply has largely peaked for several reasons:

-- Multi platform programs. We're already seeing a lot of network originals repurposed into cable in ways that aren't traditional syndication. 60 Minutes Classics running on CBS owned cable networks, old Datelines on MSNBC, etc. I expect that to become even more common.

-- The efficiency of syndicated reruns vs originals in many cases. TNT doesn't run those L&O episodes into the ground just for the hell of it, the numbers remain decent even after all these years. Same for shows like In The Heat of the Night and the like. kcchief's point about the bazillion airings of the same episode of any new show is well made too.

-- The saturation point has to be reached for networks eventually, I think it pretty much has been already at least if you expect the network to be financially viable. And that means demand will level off at best, start to drop if I'm right about the other points.

Many shows though can't make it without the syndicated reruns.

I still see it going to an on-demand type system. I just see no other solution for them. I think we'll see a major divide in premium cable customers and basic ones. The premium packages could cost up to $200/month while more basic ones may remain under $100.

We're already seeing cable networks pushing on cable companies for higher fees. Pretty sure it costs a ton to carry ESPN per subscriber and some other sports networks like NFL and Big 10 have had fairly large spats with the companies about carrying their networks. Not sure why this wouldn't spill over to some of the other networks.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand if the demand drops then there's an excess supply of talent so the prices should drop. On the other hand, I don't get a sense that a lot of the egos involved are adjusted to the reality of being paid less today than they were five years ago. And I can't imagine them dropping far enough to make scripted shows more profitable than a marginally successful unscripted show.

Haven't we seen a drop though in TV star salaries? I remember that the Friends stars were making $1 million an episode or something in their heyday. I can't remember anyone in recent memory coming close to that. It seems they are making more on the backend if a show is popular instead of up front (which does reduce initial production costs).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The more webvertising I deal with, the more apt I discover the word "disaster" really is. It's a niche with more hucksters, con artists, and crooks than I've ever seen & probably better than half of them rely on the ignorance of the advertiser to make their living. Sooner or later they do get smarter (or get weeded out) & that's one reason the niche is hitting a plateau.

While the feedback from it can be more tangible than some other mediums (hard to beat X ad received Y clicks & directly produced Z orders worth XYZ dollars), the inconsistent performance I see produced by virtually identical scenarios makes it a roulette medium. Identical ads to identical bases producing wild swings in performance seemingly based on nothing, not even the phases of the moon or the number of vowels in the month. And that's if the numbers you're getting back are accurate, apples to apples, and haven't been blatantly straight up faked.

I deal with this everyday and I think it's a really solid write-up of internet advertising. There are so many charlatans out there and so many people being suckered into buying traffic from them. There are honestly only a few good outlets these days.

But it can be incredible in terms of tracking. If a company is willing to invest in building some solid analytics, they can literally figure out to the penny what a visitor from a particular source is worth. We setup and operate this for one of the largest poker sites on the web and it's amazing the detail we can get. I can tell you what each keyword is worth, what a visitor from each State is worth, and so on. It eventually turns into an arbitrage game where you are paying $0.04 for a visitor from X site and it's making you $0.06 in return. Can set it on cruise control and move to the next source.

I'm actually surprised we don't see better tracking on TV these days. You'd think with the amount of boxes out there and the demographic information that the cable companies already have, they'd be able to offer up much better statistics than Nielsen. Just seems TV ratings are based on stone age tactics when we have the technology to be much more accurate.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not the opposite. I can't DVR a live sports event because I know that the result has happened. It's completely mental but still something I can't deal with.

My brother came over late for the Bears game a couple weeks ago and I just paused it at noon. We eventually caught up to the live telecast but it just felt weird rooting for stuff that already happened.

I know plenty of people who have this mindset - but I honestly fail to understand it.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Obviously most people skip over the commercials when using their DVRs but on the flip side it allows people to watch multiple programs that are on the same time. People no longer have to choose between say, CSI and Survivor anymore since they can DVR them.

I wonder if JIMG or anyone has any insight into that.

A friend of mine works at a network and tells me they now sell advertising based on overnight ratings, DVR+3 day ratings and DVR+7 day ratings (with appropriate haircuts calculated). If you hold something on your DVR for more than 7 days without watching it, they can't monetize it.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Why not just advertise stuff on the bottom of the screen, with a slightly taller ticker? People won't feel like they're being 'tricked' into watching ads through product placement in the actual show, networks won't have to worry about the ads being skipped, and viewers (well, 54% of them at least) won't have to bother fast-forwarding. And football games won't have to take so long with no TV timeouts.

This is actually one of the newer dynamic ad concepts (among others) the cable industry is moving towards. Similar to what others have said...people hate it but it accomplishes 2 things.

1. The advertiser gets their ad in front of eyeballs.
2. If you want to enjoy "ad-free" content you can pay for it...via DVD/BluRay.

I call it Idiocracy TV myself.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't recall whether I've asked you this before but I know it's crossed my mind before so just in case ... I don't get any sense that this has happened but I don't quite get why you haven't ended up with a best-available-program viewing philosophy similar to my own.

There's a definite vibe of dissatisfaction with the state of TV when you post about the subject & we seem to avoid the same shows but I haven't picked up on anything that leads me to believe you're finding much happiness with the alternatives. As different as we may be on some things in life, it strikes me plausible that we ought to be relatively similar with regard to finding alternatives to viewing.

I don't lament the absence of anything on TV at this point because I'm able to find enough programs that I enjoy equally or more than anything I'd be wishing for. For me a diet of Ghost Hunters, procedural episodes that I either haven't seen/don't remember that well/can happily watch again, and random stray programs on History, Military, Discovery, etc. pretty much fill as many hours as I need filled by TV.

Our choice in programs might very well be different but for some reason I have a tough time getting my head around your apparently inability to find satisfying alternative programming. You just strike me as someone who ought to be able to find a fairly ample supply of things to watch that don't leave you wanting more and it's perplexed me more than once that this doesn't seem to be the case.

awww....you big cuddly conservative with your kind words about us finding common ground and stuff . Nooo...I definately do find satisfying alternative programming. In fact most of my nights are pretty full of TV-viewing. CBS Monday, Top Chef, Hells Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares, BBC America - Dragon's Den & Robin Hood, reruns of George Lopez (hey what can I say, it makes me laugh), Law&Order: SVU, Criminal Minds, Burn Notice, Entourage, Californication, Tudors, Fox Soccer Channel, GolTV, Sons of Anarchy. And that's not even touching History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, and MSNBC which are always there to fill in the blanks.

I just...lament the passing of quality network-TV scriped shows I guess. Probably has something to do with all the writing I used to do and the creative side of me.

I definately have found quality alternative programming - funny that it hasn't shown through in my dissatisfied-with-state-of-tv postings. There's a ton of it out there. I don't know...guess I'm just a bit nostalgic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Why not just advertise stuff on the bottom of the screen, with a slightly taller ticker? People won't feel like they're being 'tricked' into watching ads through product placement in the actual show, networks won't have to worry about the ads being skipped, and viewers (well, 54% of them at least) won't have to bother fast-forwarding. And football games won't have to take so long with no TV timeouts.

Because the effectiveness of such an ad would render it close to relatively worthless, to the point of being the sort of thing that networks frequently give away as value added.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I know plenty of people who have this mindset - but I honestly fail to understand it.

Yeah. The practical side of me got over the not watching games live thing real quick.

[molson]

I feel like the future of advertising has to be more than just figuring out where to slap your logo on something.

Maybe businesses should cut out the middle man and get into the entertainment industry. Or maybe the studios and production companies should start selling stuff. Imagine a company known both for producing great movies and delicious coffee. They wouldn't really need to "advertise" in the traditional sense.

Or whatever. I just think the whole industry needs to be re-invented somehow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Haven't we seen a drop though in TV star salaries? I remember that the Friends stars were making $1 million an episode or something in their heyday. I can't remember anyone in recent memory coming close to that.

Name a TV star that's not connected to a reality show that approaches the status of the Friends cast members though. That accounts for the kind of overall average drop you're talking about I think. But as of last year, Charlie Sheen was making $825k per episode + partial ownership & William Petersen was reportedly second at $600k per.
http://www.reuters.com/article/telev...51456620080804

Problem I'm thinking of isn't on the top end though, it's in the salary floor. I'm sure, just to pick an example, the ABC version of Scrubs isn't going to cost big bucks in the grand scheme of TV salary since most of the cast appears to be generic/unknown. But there's still a salary floor for those bodies & that isn't going down any time soon. And it's still cheaper to producer unscripted than it is to pay enough of those + next tier talent + raises for those who elevate themselves from obscurity (which is actually something that's been killing shows for several years now)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sooner333

People get pissed at regular commercials too. DVR people just skip them. People would either get used to it or stop watching TV. They won't stop watching TV.

No, they've accepted regular commercials. The amount of rabid bitching about the in show ads is at a fever pitch in some areas (like ridiculously so - because it actually interferes with the show's picture itself rather than being placed separately from it). And yes, they probably will be forced to get used to it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I deal with this everyday and I think it's a really solid write-up of internet advertising. There are so many charlatans out there and so many people being suckered into buying traffic from them. There are honestly only a few good outlets these days.

And how fucked is the industry when you & I are in significant agreement?

But it can be incredible in terms of tracking. If a company is willing to invest in building some solid analytics, they can literally figure out to the penny what a visitor from a particular source is worth. We setup and operate this for one of the largest poker sites on the web and it's amazing the detail we can get. I can tell you what each keyword is worth, what a visitor from each State is worth, and so on. It eventually turns into an arbitrage game where you are paying $0.04 for a visitor from X site and it's making you $0.06 in return. Can set it on cruise control and move to the next source.

If only I had clients who dealt with such readily attributed results. But if you aren't selling product directly and/or aren't dealing with immediate sale, that becomes a much bigger guessing game very quickly. I'm currently in a big hoo-ha with a client who is trying to find a comfort level with his 2010 online spending (was 22% in '09, currently swinging as high as 45% to as little as 30% next year). Problem is that, even with above average tracking of their customer purchases (vs other clients), it's hard for me to find the remotest justification for virtually any online spending based on past performance.
I can find no flaw with their historic targeting, the creative is solid, the creative is updated extremely well, etc. There's not much (anything really) I can find to account for swings in clickthru rates as much as 100x from one flight to the next.

I'm actually surprised we don't see better tracking on TV these days. You'd think with the amount of boxes out there and the demographic information that the cable companies already have, they'd be able to offer up much better statistics than Nielsen. Just seems TV ratings are based on stone age tactics when we have the technology to be much more accurate.

Whaddya want to know? There's more specific data out there, of course, than is usually discussed publicly or freely. Thing is, there's still a ton of products that have a very general audience in terms of age, income, etc. And as TV becomes more & more niched, that's creating problems that didn't exist nearly so much when everybody was watching one of three channels.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

After seeing some numbers I pulled for a project last week, I seriously wonder how much longer some of the existing cable networks are even going to be around or how viable they are as advertising vehicles for broad market products at this point. The number of viewers for average programming on several cable networks that you would definitely know (i.e I'm not talking about the bottom rung of the cable ladder here) are so astonishingly small that the ROI from advertising simply doesn't exist & a lot of the money is being spent out of habit & desperation at this point. Eventually I think advertisers are going to have to wise up about their spending or go under themselves.

I think that's why the cable/video provider industry is moving towards targeted advertising models. Some of the kinks still need to be worked out (i.e. takes more bandwidth to deliver, how do you address the DVR issue without removing ffwd, if you do remove DVR ffwd you now need more DVR storage , etc.).

But I "think" it can work...albeit in a reasonably different method than done today. Similar to how we segment locally inserted ads (at the catv mso) into "zones". When we "zone" we can charge less money but reduce the entry point cost for advertisers (obviously broadening the advertiser base). So, similar to how catv mso's insert "Joe's Tires" (i.e. small time local company) today...one could also insert mass ads for "Palmolive" or "Mercedes" (i.e. national companies), etc. This lets the (savvy) advertiser pick and choose markets, demographics within those markets, and the like...mildly similar to a web-based model (that's what some people are calling it...but it really isn't the same). To me...being an "advertisement aggregator & placement servicer" would seem like a business to get into if national ads are bread & butter business today, and possibly going away.

Cox, NBCU kick start dynamic ad trial in Phoenix

On the broadcast tv side...I agree with your comments about going the route of cable networks. But with a small caveat...I believe they will transition to (nearly) all national programming with little local affiliate presence(i.e. just a couple people making sure it goes back out the OTA airwaves). If this still proves cost prohibitive to stay on-air...one of 2 things happens (maybe even both).

1. The local affiliate gets subsidized by the (local or federal) government.
2. The local mso's (i.e. telecom or catv) absorb them and offer them exclusively over their lines (in exchange for maintaining the OTA feed).

I'd be curious your thoughts as well...as I see quite a lot of changes coming down the pipeline. Especially with the "Comcast buying NBCU" type of stuff out there...reaks of things to come.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let me read this slowly, cause I'm either getting lost or I'm in disagreement for a specific reason or two.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Similar to how we segment locally inserted ads (at the catv mso) into "zones". When we "zone" we can charge less money but reduce the entry point cost for advertisers (obviously broadening the advertiser base).

Okay, I'm with you so far.

So, similar to how catv mso's insert "Joe's Tires" (i.e. small time local company) today...one could also insert mass ads for "Palmolive" or "Mercedes" (i.e. national companies), etc. This lets the (savvy) advertiser pick and choose markets, demographics within those markets, and the like...mildly similar to a web-based model (that's what some people are calling it...but it really isn't the same).

I'm still with you sort of but in that description as I'm understanding it I'm a little confused about who you're talking about doing the segmenting. I mean, cable networks/cable programming already segments audiences into fairly tightly niched demographics. And by virtue of that, what you buy determines who you're hitting already.

It seems hard to narrow that focus much more on, say, a household basis since my wife may be watching any of three different televisions within the house so you can't tie it to the receiver or the television or something like that. It could narrow it a little more but realistically the program selection on cable is doing most of that work for you already. Poor women 35-44 don't watch the same stuff as rich women 35-44 basically, not to any more intolerable degree than people lie about their demographic information used to identify them online currently.

On the broadcast tv side...I agree with your comments about going the route of cable networks. But with a small caveat...I believe they will transition to (nearly) all national programming with little local affiliate presence

I dunno, the local affiliates are actually doing better than the national programming in some cases. I mean, WSB-TV still makes a shitload of money for Cox Communications with their local news ad dollars & outdraws a lot of what they get from the network in terms of ratings.

Since the networks are already focused strictly on national programming I can only assume you mean that the traditional relationship between the networks & the local affiliates is what you think would end. Maybe so, but I see the strongest local affiliates in a lot of markets coming out of that better off than they are now.

Hypothetically speaking, imagine a dominant player in a market being able to cherry pick from the programming of multiple networks (as occasionally happened in underserved markets over the years). Difference this time around being that, as I understand it, the network ties to local affiliates are largely broken & it's open season instead of being the #2 & #3 network affiliate combined trying to compete with a clear #1.

1. The local affiliate gets subsidized by the (local or federal) government.

Becomes cost prohibitive I think since in this scenario the one's needing subsidy aren't going to be remotely salvageable.

2. The local mso's (i.e. telecom or catv) absorb them and offer them exclusively over their lines (in exchange for maintaining the OTA feed).

Maybe, but I'm not sure the math ultimately adds up on that either, especially if the existing network structures has broken down, been rendered insignificant, whatever.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm still with you sort of but in that description as I'm understanding it I'm a little confused about who you're talking about doing the segmenting. I mean, cable networks/cable programming already segments audiences into fairly tightly niched demographics. And by virtue of that, what you buy determines who you're hitting already.

The physical segmenting would have to be done by the video provider since it gets more granular...but the ad is pre-determined for demographics fitting a particular criteria.

It seems hard to narrow that focus much more on, say, a household basis since my wife may be watching any of three different televisions within the house so you can't tie it to the receiver or the television or something like that. It could narrow it a little more but realistically the program selection on cable is doing most of that work for you already. Poor women 35-44 don't watch the same stuff as rich women 35-44 basically, not to any more intolerable degree than people lie about their demographic information used to identify them online currently.

The situation you described is exactly the issue with trying to target between men & women demographics on a household basis (beyond the programming itself) without some sort of "profile" setup...which of course can be incorrect for many reasons (typo, multi-viewers, purposely entered incorrect, etc.). This is why (initial) concepts are more along the lines of a combination of cultural & economic. So...you might be thinking that "well, rich people watch x, a poor household watches y, a spanish speaking household watches z, etc." But the idea is to have a scenario for further targeting between these types of demographics. It likely debuts more with programming that tends to be more neutral by nature...like sports, news, etc. Of course...the implications of such targeting are potentially unsettling...like if you and I were watching the same game and you got the funny Mercedes commercial and I got the Kia commercial...and this comes up at the water cooler. So...some definite marketing trends need to be defined yet and this is not my side of it...I just make it work.

Since the networks are already focused strictly on national programming I can only assume you mean that the traditional relationship between the networks & the local affiliates is what you think would end. Maybe so, but I see the strongest local affiliates in a lot of markets coming out of that better off than they are now.

Yep, definitely was talking about the national network/local affiliate relationship. I probably should have added a caveat for some (perhaps many) local affiliates that do quite well. I was thinking that in a good number of second/third tier markets you may see this...especially with the national networks putting more of their content on the net, and with the video providers offering many of their popular episodes on VOD, etc.

[Qrusher14242]

only thing i use my dvr for is all the soccer that is on, so i can watch later. I just download the network shows and watch them on xbmc. Mostly cause its better quality than watching it on tv and all my network shows are cropped on Directv. So the sides get cut off and it looks like crap.