DVR Gaining Popularity

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by aadam101, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. Mar 1, 2012 #1 of 76
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,107
    11
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    http://www.studiobriefing.net/2012/03/dvr-gaining-popularity/

    According to this article only 8% of households have a DVR? That doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't it be much higher than this? Cable company DVR's are pretty popular these days.
     
  2. Mar 1, 2012 #2 of 76
    Playloud

    Playloud Member

    103
    0
    Jan 6, 2008
    I suppose it depends on the area. Around here, I am sure it is much higher than 8%.
     
  3. Mar 1, 2012 #3 of 76
    Grey Griffin

    Grey Griffin Member

    123
    0
    May 24, 2007
    Tulsa, OK
    This article says DVR penetration is at 42%:

    http://www.tvguide.com/News/Networks-Ratings-DVR-1038856.aspx

    This article from 2010 says between 26.5% and 47.1% depending on market:

    http://www.business2community.com/trends-news/has-dvr-usage-made-tv-commercials-obsolete-01330

    The one from the op is using statistics from Nielsen, they have always downplayed the importance of DVRs. It also reads like they might be saying 8% is the amount of a person's day spent watching programs from DVR. That may be accurate.
     
  4. Mar 1, 2012 #4 of 76
    scandia101

    scandia101 Just the facts ma'am

    11,098
    151
    Oct 20, 2007
    MN, greater...
    Yes, the article is discussing dvr usage not ownership.
     
  5. Mar 1, 2012 #5 of 76
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,107
    11
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    Ah. You are correct. I read it wrong. That makes more sense.
     
  6. Mar 1, 2012 #6 of 76
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    47,079
    4,331
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    I wonder what the networks are going to do when they reach 80-90%? If the vast majority of people are skipping ads then advertisers are going to bail out or at the very least stop paying the outrageous prices.

    Dan
     
  7. Mar 1, 2012 #7 of 76
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,594
    583
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    That is a tantalizing prospect to consider, or is it scary? Would it accelerate the growth of IPTV or a la carte? Personally I would be happy to pay for just the entertainment I want. And that massive hidden cost of TV advertising built into all our products (frequently exaggerated in posts by lrhorer :p) would disappear, thus saving us lots of money. Or more likely the vendors would just find other avenues for spending their ad budget. Really have to wonder what the impact on OTA-only TV viewers would be. Perhaps our government would subsidize terrestrial broadcasters and content producers so they aren't deprived. Maybe PBS would really boom! However it's going to have to broaden it's programming to cover NASCAR, wrestling and Dancing with The Stars -- things that really appeal to the average viewer.
     
  8. Mar 1, 2012 #8 of 76
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,107
    11
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I would like to see less programming. There is way too much of it right now. There is a "reality" cable show for just about every possible *and ridiculous" scenario these days.
     
  9. Mar 2, 2012 #9 of 76
    lessd

    lessd Well-Known Member

    7,952
    88
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    One must fill 500 or more channels with something.
     
  10. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    It's not about the volume of programming, it is about the quality, or rather dearth thereof. I would be pleased to see the failure of all the silly, sensationalist crap on the tube today, and indeed, it puzzles me that anyone watches such idiotic nonsense in the first place. OTOH, I can't imagine why the National Enquirer has even a single reader.
     
  11. Number528

    Number528 Member

    43
    8
    Oct 6, 2011
    FiOS,...
    While I will never watch most of these shows, I have to point out that *someone* is. The medium is driven by results, if no one watched (or bought the National Enquirer) the products wouldn't exist.
     
  12. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,931
    604
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    This is an interesting (amusing?) concept and has been talk about somewhat at various times in various posts in the past. There seems to be some basic beliefs such as:
    1. Advertising increases the cost of products.
    2. If companies stopped advertising the cost of products would be less.
    I basically disagree with both of the above statements.

    Regardless of what anyone wants to believe the reason companies market products (advertise) is because over all it is profitable to do so and having less profitable companies doesn't make products cost less.

    It is somewhat true that we would be saving lots of money if advertising would disappear. The reason however isn't because stuff would cost less it is because there would not be anything much to buy and we would be in some form of a pre-industrialised agricultural society.

    The bases of our capitalist society is that entrepreneurs not only have the ability to develop new products but also the ability to market (advertise) and sell those products to profit from their development. If you take away marketing (advertising) to a great extent you take away the ability to profit from development of new or better products, which results in removing the incentive to develop new or better products.

    Also without marketing (advertising) you basically eliminate or significantly reduce competition. Because to have competition not only do you have to have competing products and services the consumer has to know about them. Competition is another engine that pushes the development of better products and helps deduce the cost to consumers. Without it we would get more costly and inferior products.

    So while I think it sucks to be consistently marketed to, I understand that I also benefit greatly from the process.
     
  13. mr.unnatural

    mr.unnatural Well-Known Member

    4,621
    101
    Feb 2, 2006
    Ellicott...
    Our society has been brainwashed into thinking that more is always better, hence the reason why there's 500 channels with nothing to watch. Part of that has to do with, you guessed it, advertising.:eek: I've got nothing against companies wanting to educate consumers about their products. I just don't like the way the vast majority of them go about it. Some commercials are well worth watching whereas others are a complete waste of my time and sensibility.

    If vendors stopped advertising there would actually be less quality TV to watch. Game shows and reality TV are the cheapest shows to produce so unless you want a steady diet of crap like that to consume you've got to suck it up and take the commercials. TV shows are expensive to produce, considering that many actors get upwards of a million bucks per episode of a popular show. Pull the advertising and studios lose their subsidy to help cover the costs.

    That being said, I record everything I watch and skip through about 98% of all commercials.:D
     
  14. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,594
    583
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    I basically agree with you. When you quoted me above you left out the next part of what I said, here:
    Generally, a product that isn't advertised will lose in market competition to a competing product that is advertised. Thus even though it might be a better buy it will not sell. So the true statement is that advertising does increase the cost of the product, but removing that cost means the product goes off the market -- so the consumer cannot realize the advantage of the reduced cost.

    This results from the behavior of most consumers. Ads are the predominant mechanism for getting information about products. They are too lazy, or too busy (your choice), to research information about products so they allow ads to influence them. (The same effect occurs in spades in political campaigns.) There is an existance proof that things don't have to work that way: Consumer Reports magazine. For a few bucks per year you can get unbiased consumer-oriented test results and ratings. Currently CR is used by only a tiny percentage of consumers and thus can offer only very limited scope of coverage. If a large fraction of consumers would support it, it would have the budget to test and report on just about every product and probably also reduce its subscription costs to boot.
     
  15. lessd

    lessd Well-Known Member

    7,952
    88
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    I found CR to give high ratings to products that are no longer available, to test products in a way that I would never use them IE like sand in a washer when I don't live at the beach. I like the reviews that people who bought the produce write, I discount the ones that got DOA units but look for points that matter to me.
     
  16. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,594
    583
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    That's the basic fact and no amount of whining about it is going to change it. I would add that the effectiveness of the ads (including the absolutely worthless ones) is the driving force behind this.
    Slight correction: Our society has allowed itself to be brainwashed. If the average person isn't able to resist brainwashing attempts, we are doomed. However hope is on the horizon! When we achieve the goal recently stated by our President that 100% of us get a college education, I am absolutely certain that brainwashing attempts will no longer succeed. :rolleyes: And I'm even more certain that college costs will skyrocket at an even higher rate than they have been. But will what is being learned increase??
     
  17. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,931
    604
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Actually many people want to be brained washed and actually fight to be as brain dead as possible. This allows them to define their and other people's worth/value buy the products they own. Life is easy that way, someone who dares to have the wrong brand of sneakers, shirt, or what ever must clearly be inferior.

    I am fairly sure TiVo tapped into that "this is the cool new product that everyone who is anyone has" mentality for as long as they could.

    Politics is no different, If anyone wants to see a great example of people willfully allowing themselves to be brained washed just look at the number of people currently receiving benefits from a Gov program who claimed they never used a gov social program:

     
  18. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    22,542
    849
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    There were only two or three actors that made over 1 million per episode last year. The rest of the highly paid actors aren't anywhere close to one million per episode.
     
  19. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    47,079
    4,331
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    Either way actors are over paid. They work what a few days, maybe, on an episode? And in those couple of days most make more then the average person makes in an entire year. Hell the cast of Jersey Shore, at stupid reality show, makes more per episode then most people make in a year.

    Dan
     
  20. jonbig

    jonbig New Member

    128
    0
    Sep 22, 2003
    My, this is naive.

    Actors are paid what the market demands. If no one is willing to pay for an actor's product, he doesn't get work and doesn't get paid. if people are willing to pay the price they are charging, then by definition they deserve what they make, since the actor didn't hold a gun to someone's head and take their pay by force.

    If you think they aren't paid what they are worth, simply don't consume what they produce. If enough people agree with you, the actor's income will dry up.

    Thinking your way is the road to perpetual unhappiness, fueled by envy.
     

Share This Page