Commentary
TV Haters Really Need To Think Again
- by Sean Hargrave , Staff Writer, March 3, 2015
Compared to the average Brit watching 3 hours and 41 minutes of television on a traditional set each day, just 3 minutes and 30 seconds are watched on a mobile phone, tablet or laptop.
So there has been a slight decline in television watching, but the figures suggest this has mainly come from the heaviest consumers -- the real couch potatoes -- watching a little less television, rather than the average consumer.
Now, I know what you're thinking. These are average figures, and yes, you're right. That surely means that television is being consumed by us middle-aged dinosaurs while the youth are switched off to the box in the living room and are doing their own thing on a mobile device of their choice. Well, yes, but only very marginally so. Youth television viewing dropped just 7% in 2014, yet television remains the dominant channel to reach the youth on. Strangely enough, I stumbled on a YouTube statistic this morning that states half of their viewers are over 35.
advertisement
advertisement
The second elephant in the room is that people may be watching fractionally less television than before, but the time they are committing to the channel is now devoted to Netflix and catch-up services. Actually, the facts are that in 2013, 89% of viewing was of live linear television and in 2014 that has fallen by a whole, staggering single percentage point, to 88%. So that leaves 12% to other types of catch-up and on-demand content which must surely be watched on a mobile device? Well, actually no -- the catch-up and on demand gap is definitely there, but according to BARB and Thinkbox just 1.6% of all television consumption happens away from a television set.
Put it this way. If a digital marketer were to offer you, the brand, a channel that has a near 95% reach among the general public who consume it for the best part of three and three-quarter hours every day, with two-thirds of that time spent on commercial channels, I think you would be very unlikely to see it as a dinosaur channel that other brands are shunning in a bid to be more relevant in a digital age.
These are all salient points to bear in mind next time you're at a conference and a guru is revealing how television is in crisis because big brands are moving their spend into social or programmatic display. Sure, these things may well be happening in isolation, but the big picture is that the country's heaviest television viewers are watching a little less (which is probably not a bad thing), yet still, 95% of the population are spending two-thirds of their near three-and-a-quarter hours of television watching tuned into commercial channels.
If that is the death rattle of a channel on its last knees, I can certainly think of some channels created by digital marketing that would kill for such a fate.
Sean Hargrave is MediaPost's London Editor. You can reach him at seanhargrave@btinternet.com.
"There were 22 million connected TVs installed and accessing the Internet in the fourth quarter of 2014."
Come now. Netflix alone had 39M subscribers as of Q4 2014, and the vast majority of these subscriptions is serving an Internet-connected TV. Try again.
Pssst. That would be Uk data, while Netflix would be global.
Your half right. I failed to realize it is was UK post (despite the glaring headline), so I was wrong on that account. The Netflix data, however, is for domestic US subscribers only (hit 39M in Q4 per the company's financial docs).
Michael - the 38M subscribers is lovely. And how much time does that turn into? In our household, we probably average about an hour a week on Netflix and over 20 hours a week on Television. There's a problem with the myth of big numbers that so many of the digerati love to use (like you used the Netflix numbers here). Here's a post about Lady Gaga's numbers back when they were big... (And we should note that Lady Gaga has quickly fallen from those dominant heights while MTV hasn't.) https://dsgarnett.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/an-axiom-for-new-media-big-numbers-are-not-the-same-as-meaningful-numbers/
Let's not be throwing about derogatory names. I shudder at being labeled 'digerati' -- spare me, please. I'm a researcher and analyst. And if you know about my 14 years of video research, then you would know how deeply I dive into all types of video viewing behavior, including the number of hours viewed on different platforms and different services. I'm making no claim that per-capita weekly viewing is the same for legacy (broadcast/cable) on OTT sources. Not at all, as I know that not to be the case. However, the very fact that 38M households now have the option to watch Netflix instead of legacy TV, and that they are viewing increasing amounts of OTT content and less regular TV broadcasts, is common knowledge. The bulk of research (whether TDG's or Nielsen's) indicates that OTT TV is making significant inroads on legacy TV, both in terms of 'first glance' metrics and per-capita viewing.
Michael, you make good and fair points. But one should never confuse penetration with usage, or indeed with weight of usage. One simple example from Australia, Something like 52% of homes here have access to a DVR, and we are starting to see the rate of growth taper. But an analysis of DVR usage over a three month period was done here (in PeopleMeter homes) , and it showed that (in round numbers) 40% used their DVR daily, 60% used it weekly, and 80% had used it at least once in the past three months (i.e. 20% don't use it even bother to use it). When you put that on top of the fact that more people watch TV 'linear' than 'time-shifted' you can see that any correlation between penetration and weight of usage is spurious (in this DVR example).
"One should never confuse penetration with usage or indeed with weight of usage."
Of course not, and who are you suggesting confused the two? Certainly not me. I made no claim that penetration = usage. These are different metrics that measure different phenomena, and which cannot simply be transposed. However, this no way implies that measuring penetration is not important or irrelevant to viewing behavior. At the very least it sets a boundary on measuring usage, for it your household does not own a specific device, or you do not personally use a specific service, then I cannot measure your usage. Moreover, when you're dealing with emerging products and services, penetration is initially your most important metric, for without penetration you have no revenue or usage to measure.
I agree Michael (hence the use of 'one' and not 'you' - apologies if you thought I was implying the latter). Many do though, so I was reinforcing the point with a parallel example that hopefully adds to the public knowledge pool. For our currencies here we initially measure penetration with 5%-10% being the tipping point at which we need to be allocating serious resource (time, money and brainpower) to investigating and developing solutions. Generally the first stage is regular 'claimed usage' surveys. This is then often followed by a pilot around data capture, which if successful and financially viable leads to some form of rollout. The problem is that the market always wants the last stage first! Cheers.
Isn't that the truth! : )
Just a note for clarity, Michael... You'll note I carefully didn't suggest you're digerati... Otherwise, it's fun to watch the discussions develop.