Broadcast-Only TV, No-TV Reception Homes Grow
- by Wayne Friedman , July 13, 2016
Broadcast-only TV homes have grown slightly and those in Internet video-only TV households. A new report from GfK says 17% of U.S. TV homes now receive broadcast-only TV reception -- up from 15% in 2015.
Another 6% say they only use video on demand services -- Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube -- homes with no traditional broadcast TV or pay TV reception at all.
This is up versus 4% a year ago.
Both these activities are higher with TV homes that have a 18-34 person in the household -- 22% are using broadcast-only reception and 13% are watching only Internet services for TV programming/video. Overall, near 40% rely on some alternative TV source -- this versus 25% for all TV homes.
Some 26% of broadcast only TV homes earn under $30,000 per year versus 17% among all TV homes. TV homes with incomes of $50,000 a year or more have higher levels of satellite TV services– 27%, compared to an average of 21%.
New 4K TV continue to have slow growth. GfK says 5% of U.S homes have 4K TV screens, growing to 10% next year. Of those that have 4K TV, 50% of owners watch 4K content.
Research also notes 3% of U.S. homes have no TVs at all.
advertisement
advertisement
GfK uses a small survey and comes up with a different answer than Nielsen does with a much larger survey. Either set of results could be correct, but I think I will trust the company that uses a larger sample many times per year rather than an annual survey. Broadcasters, of course, are welcome to comfort themselves in the other direction.
Douglas, it's not so much a matter of sample size but of how the information is obtained and whether the respondent understands the question. Nielsen has been in this business for a long, long time and makes very sure to identify its panel, updating its information frequently. That's why I would go with Nielsen in the event of a significant discrepancy.
Doug I agree with Ed, but your sample size comment is definitely salient.
I came across a funny one when we were piloting a study into DAB+ digital radio penetration in Australia. The pilot was more about ease of use at that stage.
The question was worded something like "Do you have access or listen to Digtal Radio?". To our amazement 6% of people said they did. Amazed because DAB+ hadn't been launched yet.
We did a re-contact of those that said 'Yes'. One lovely older lady summarised it perfectly ... yes I have a digital radio and you can even set an alarm to ring with it as well!
We also find that asking for PVR penetration is flawed (under-stated) because many respondents don't realise that their new/modern TV has PVR capability. We measure it via technician verified data from the TV panel every 4 weeks.
So be careful what you ask and how you ask it!
A long time age I conducted a study of people's attitudes towards a large number of primetime TV shows and, just as a lark, included a description of a network crime solving series starring myself and two media reseacch pals as the swinging "detectives" in the series. Not surprisingly approximately 2-3% of the respondents claimed to be regualr viewers of this non-existant program and our 18-34 "rating" was well above average. Also, most of our "viewers" said that they really liked the series. I'll bet that we would have gotten the same result with 10 or 20 times the sample we actually used ( 1000 ).
Coming to NetFlix soon Ed?
John, I've sampled some of Netflix's shows and reviewed its menu of viewing options but so far, there just isn't enough there to interest me. As a matter of fact, the same goes for the broadcast TV networks. The only times I watch their primetime entertainment fare is when I'm doing research on the subject. I suppose that were I a "millennial" and eager to chat with my social peers about the stuff I watched or tweet about the shows, I might subscribe to Netflix. But it's mostly just so time wasting filler as far as I'm concerned. I've got too many fish to fry to consume hour after of such stuff,