Another Ratings vs. DVR thread

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Steveknj, Apr 25, 2011.

  1. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    53,471
    3,481
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
  2. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    113,880
    4,166
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    great article. thanks for sharing.. But I wonder about THIS comment by an advertiser...

    "“There is a good reason why we wouldn’t want to go beyond C3,” he said. “Advertisers like retailers and restaurants, anything with near-term openings, are looking for one- to three-day campaigns.” "


    How many ads are for retailers and resturants running ads specific to a NEW location opening up? I mean, I can see it for a movie that is going to be released within a few days.. But even for movies, it's common to promote them for a few WEEKS prior to release date.
     
  3. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    53,471
    3,481
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I guess for restaurants, maybe they are running a weekend special, something like that. But usually, at least for chains, they run a month.
     
  4. marksman

    marksman ID-10-T

    16,781
    0
    Mar 4, 2002
    I have a problem with this as I could list off hundreds of major advertisers who run ads that are not time sensitive at all. Especially not within three days.

    How are household cleaning products time sensitive? Soda? Stupid drug commercials? Cereals? Cars?

    This idea that most campaigns have to hit in 3 days is stupid. The reality is advertisers are using this to push back at the networks who have robbed them for years for paying for mystical results.

    Ultimately as more accountability is added into the mix, which things like DVRs can provide, Advertisers will be fine with paying for longer viewing windows, at least most of them. All that is happening now, though, is pushback, as the networks try to expand their magical empire and the advertisers say not so fast.

    The fringe example is a good one though, as at least one or some network execs realize their goal is to monetize the people who watch a show, not demand that everyone watch a show in a very narrow and specific way and discount everyone else.
     
  5. DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    58,427
    4,266
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    While there are lots of products where it doesn't appear to the consumer that the advertising is time sensitive, the advertiser still treats it as a time-sensitive campaign because that's how they measure effectiveness. Let's say Brand X buys an ad campaign scheduled to run on multiple channels on Thursday night. The advertisers will then measure the effectiveness of the advertising if the purchase of Brand X products increases over the following few days. Sure, there are residual benefits to the advertising, such as name recognition, brand awareness, etc., but most advertisers are looking for immediate results, not long term.

    Basically, this article is pretty poorly researched. They trumpet the renewal of Fringe as some kind of indicator that Live + 7 results are having an impact on the decision of whether to renew shows. However, that's not necessarily true. Fringe was renewed because expectations on Fridays are much lower, because a full fourth season would bring the episode total to 88, and likely because the studio gave FOX a sweetheart deal. FOX really couldn't care less if 35% more people are watching after the airdate, because they can't monetize those additional viewers. However, of course they're not going to state that publicly because they don't want to turn those viewers away, either. But until the broadcast industry figures out a way to monetize timeshifted viewers, their importance to the ratings will continue to be overstated.
     
  6. JYoung

    JYoung Series 3

    30,820
    1,096
    Jan 16, 2002
    Los Angeles
    The other thing is that advertisers believe that most DVR users fast forward through commercials and in my case, they'd be right.
     
  7. MikeCC

    MikeCC TiVotee

    1,182
    139
    Jun 19, 2004
    Time sensitive advertising is for far more than Grand Openings.

    Advertisers, particularly local ones like retailers, also use time sensitive ad campaigns for sales, like Presidents' Day Sale or Memorial Day Sale. Why would an advertiser want to consider TV viewers of the commercials who see the ads a week AFTER the sale?

    The short answer is, they wouldn't.

    And, much of advertising is designed to present the same message via multiple media outlets. TV, radio, newspaper, and direct mail are examples of outlets that can quickly change the message to reflect changing conditions.

    I'm not sure TV wants to become the medium where you can only do promotions that have little time urgency. Do you really think TV would be better served by being more like billboards or magazines, whose ads have to be less timely?

    I am happy to see that the basis of this ratings discussion is on advertisers. These are television's real customers, not the viewer. I think some of our prior ratings threads have lost sight of the fact that television is selling our eyeballs to advertisers. And advertisers are telling the TV execs that they're more interested in those eyeballs around very specific times.

    As viewers, we can argue that this shouldn't be important. Our show, whether it's Chuck or Fringe or whatever, will still be the same two weeks later, right? But to the check-writing party in this equation, the advertiser, the time of viewing factor is is important.

    As the party that pays the bills, advertisers rank way ahead of the viewer.
     
  8. lew

    lew Well-Known Member

    4,234
    78
    Mar 12, 2002
    Networks air their stronger shows on Thursday. Thursday commercials typically promote movies and weekend sales.

    I agree with the PP. I suspect most (almost all) viewers who use a DVR to time shift fast forward through (almost all) commercials.

    I wonder if DVR viewers might start counting in whatever networks charge for product placement. Tougher to FF. Less likely to be time sensitive.
     
  9. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    53,471
    3,481
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    The one thing that surprised me in the article is that they said DVR penetration has slowed dow. It is at 40% now and if it's slowed down, does that mean that DVR usage will always be less than 50%. I kind of recall the VCRs in their hey day reached 80%, although i cannot say how many VCR users used it for timeshifting (I did). My assumption was that at some point, when you got cable or satellite (or FIOS/UVerse) that the DVR would replace the standard set top box. I'm guessing that is not going to be the case. And I could see why. Because I don't really think that the Networks like DVRs all that much (or not at all) and when you consider that Comcast is the owner of NBC, ad TW owns a piece of the CW, and therefore is in bed with CBS, and Disney owns ABC and DVRs could cut into their DVD/BD business, and Fox used to own DirecTV (I thik they still have a piece, not sure).

    My thought was that by now, DVRs would have penetrated more than half the TV households, but I guess not.
     
  10. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    113,880
    4,166
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    that's key.

    People had the VCR, but few actually used it for time shifting. The VCR was mainly a way to watch movies at home.
     
  11. tivogurl

    tivogurl New Member

    1,169
    0
    Dec 15, 2004
    "Fast forward" and "no brand awareness" aren't the same thing. I fast forward through commercials, but I pretty much know all of them by sight. I know what they're advertising and who the advertiser is, even at fast forward. I'd bet that's true of most people who are willing to pay for a DVR.
     
  12. DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    58,427
    4,266
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    But advertising agencies think very highly of themselves and their ability to promote a product in creative ways. If the idea is simply to make the viewer aware of a brand, companies could save a ton of money by not paying their ad agencies and simply buy 5-second spots where they showed their static logo. You'd have the same exposure to their brand. But something tells me most companies aren't ready to go that route yet and still believe (perhaps incorrectly) that creative advertising still has a place on TV.
     
  13. allan

    allan Just someone TCF Club

    16,907
    936
    Oct 13, 2002
    To me, FF doesn't keep me from seeing the commercials; it just minimizes the annoyance. In fact, without the ability to FF, I'd probably hit mute or even turn the TV off for 5 minutes, like I do for the radio ads.
     
  14. allan

    allan Just someone TCF Club

    16,907
    936
    Oct 13, 2002
    Advertising agencies seem to think commercials that drive viewers to the brink of homicidal madness are a good thing. There are several products that I will never buy, because their commercials p*ssed me off.
     
  15. JYoung

    JYoung Series 3

    30,820
    1,096
    Jan 16, 2002
    Los Angeles
    I dunno, half the time when someone asks me about a commercial, I have no idea what they're talking about.

    Of course, I was mentally tuning out commercials long before I got TiVo.

    I'd channel surf, read, go to the bathroom, fix a sandwich, or take a shower during commercial breaks.

    Rarely was I actually paying attention to them.
     
  16. DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    58,427
    4,266
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    But how many consumers are like you, actively paying attention to ads and which ones bother them vs. those that just sit there passively in front of the TV, letting the ads wash over them?
    But how many consumers are like you, actively finding something else to do during the commercial breaks vs. those that just sit there passively in front of the TV, letting the ads wash over them?

    I'm guessing that the reason advertisers spend billions every year on TV ads is because research shows they are effective vs. other types of advertising. We may think TV ads are old news or that modern consumers are not dumb enough to be influenced by advertising. But I think the vast majority of the American TV viewing public still watches live, doesn't change the channel or leave the room during commercials, and are influenced by advertising. The effectiveness might be shrinking each year, but I don't think it's to the point that advertisers are going to give up on the medium any time soon.
     
  17. Bierboy

    Bierboy Seasoned gas passer

    12,774
    184
    Jun 12, 2004
    Fishers, IN
    This....I NEVER, EVER watch any commercials. Actually, I never FF; 30ss is your friend...much preferable to FF-ing...

    Exactly...and that's why 30ss is the cat's meow...
     
  18. JYoung

    JYoung Series 3

    30,820
    1,096
    Jan 16, 2002
    Los Angeles
    Oh I grant that not everyone is doing other things but I suspect that a large number of people, perhaps even the majority, are not paying attention to the actual commercials because as you state, the effectiveness seems to be diminishing and advertisers are looking for other ways to shill their products.
     
  19. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    53,471
    3,481
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    While I am of the opinion that the old advertising model is dying. I think he's right, a majority of people still watch the commercials. I'm like you. Before I had a DVR (and a VCR before it) I would channel surf during commercials. Even today, while watching live sports, I will very often channel surf. But you know what? For as little as I THINK I don't watch commercials, I am familiar with quite a few. I think a commercial, if made right, can STILL be effective.

    As I am no longer in the target demographic, I do wonder if those who have "grown up" with DVRs and all the other new media options watch the way the most people do. that would be my concern if I were advertisers. If most 18-25 year olds are skipping ads or channel surfing, the advertising as we know it will die.
     
  20. JYoung

    JYoung Series 3

    30,820
    1,096
    Jan 16, 2002
    Los Angeles

    Perhaps a majority does, but consider that the term "channel surfing" has entered the vernacular due to enough people doing it and I think it started due to the increasing length of commercial breaks.

    I mean commercial breaks used to be 1-2 minutes long tops. Not really enough time to go channel surfing or do much of anything else.
    Now they can run 5- 10 minutes in length.

    I do wonder if they shot themselves in the foot to certain extant by building our "resistance" so to speak to commercials and are now hitting the point of diminishing returns.
     

Share This Page