January 25, 2023
Non-Traditional TV Viewing Surges
- by Wayne Friedman , March 11, 2011
Nearly one-third of urban media consumers watch TV on non-traditional platforms -- well over the average for the U.S.
Larchmont, NY-based media researcher Horowitz Associates says 31% of city consumers watch TV content on computer/laptops, mobile devices or tablets, or streamed from the Internet to the TV through so-called "over the top" devices, such as Apple TV, Xbox or blu-ray DVD players.
Horowitz says those who use alternative platforms for TV spend, on average, 15% of their video time on platforms other than traditional TV -- in addition to time spent viewing other traditional digital TV platforms: DVRs and video-on-demand services.
Looking specifically at individual multicultural urban consumers, the new study says 41% of Asians watch TV content on alternative platforms at least weekly; 37% for Latinos; and 36% for blacks. This is versus 25% for whites.
advertisement
advertisement
Just observing one alternative device -- computers/laptops -- 35% of Asians report watching TV on them weekly, compared to 22% for Latinos; 17%, blacks; and 15% for whites.
U.S. viewers' share of video-enabled mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets and gaming devices, increased to 46% in 2011 from 35% in 2010. It says "self-reported" weekly viewership of TV content on mobile devices has increased to 10% in 2011 from 4% in 2010. Weekly mobile TV viewing is highest among blacks and Latino consumers -- 14% -- compared to whites, at 7%, and Asians, at 5%.
Why the breakdown by race? I thought we were living in post-racial America now, with a post-racial Presidency.
Interesting data. But so far all we've gotten from Horowitz is a big headline and the offer to sell us details for $10,000. (Yup, that's what their website states.)
That leaves me with some key questions:
1. What did consumers THINK they meant? "TV" is a scrambled world for consumers. The lines we all draw to mean TV aren't at all what consumers draw. Does this accurately reflect consumer action?
2. This makes sense if what's mostly happening is that consumers are replacing the disappearing (disappeared?) video stores with computers & boxes. But that would also suggest we be careful about extending these specific findings to the TV world.
3. The headline ignores non-urban consumers. Did they survey them? To what degree should we consider "norm" my 24 year old urban dwelling niece who doesn't have a TV because she can't afford it all?
4. All the articles written about it ignore DVR's. But, DVR's just might play a major role in what Horowitz claims. Their press releases have been non-specific. Lacking data, we should at least consider the possibility that DVR's are included in these devices. In which case, it's a yawner study.
I just get suspicious of these headlines without substantiation. Sometimes, it's because they cherry picked a small bit of data that becomes insignificant in the context of the entire study. Given Horowitz's unwillingness to release data, I'm suspicious there's less to the survey than their headline implies.
But we'll see when someone ponies up the $10K and the details start to leak out.
Excellent points DG. Of course, such questionnaires tend to report the self-reported reach of the different access modes rather than the ratings - and of course reach tends to be the higher number.
DF, there actually can be value (statistically) in collecting race - just like there is in gender, age, location etc. - if it results in being a significantly discriminatory variable in a determinants of usage analysis. Or was it just a pot-shot at the White House.