More than half of the U.S. population and 80% of Internet users are now streaming video as part of their regular TV diet, according to a new study from Omnicom media agency OMD. The study suggests that the video streaming trend is poised to grow further with technological advances that improve the quality of the experience. Streamers already deviate from the traditional viewing standard: about 27% of their TV intake occurs outside of regularly scheduled programming times. It prompts the question -- just how a big a threat is streaming to normal programing patterns as transmitted by broadcasters, cable and satellite operators? The study showed that 24% of the nearly 1,600 respondents who regularly stream videos have either already cancelled their cable or satellite service or are open to doing so. The research did not specifically address the reasons for that churn, or the mindset to consider cancellation. But at the very least, the growth in viewing to video streams should be setting off alarms at mainstream TV programmers. Of course, many are on the case: CBS has an agreement with Netflix and NBC, ABC and Fox are partners in Hulu, to name just a couple of examples. OMD researchers say they don't believe that video streaming will become the primary TV programing source, at least in the foreseeable future. "We don't look at it as a replacement for TV, but rather as a complement to traditional TV viewing," said Erin Bilezikjian-Johnson, group director, custom Research & Insights, OMD. The reasons for the growing popularity of streamed content are pretty clear. People don't want to be tied to programming schedules dictated by others; they find the number of ads and interruptions -- as well as the general tenor of the messaging in traditional TV channels -- to be annoying, per the study. That said, the study also found that nearly two-thirds of respondents would not cancel their cable or satellite service and rely solely on streaming video. For now, quality appears to be an issue curbing the growth of video streaming. When asked why they don't watch more streaming videos, the answer most often provided (37%) by those polled was that they simply prefer watching regular TV. And 22% said that streams were "difficult to watch with other people." Twenty percent cited general quality issues, while another 20% said streaming screens were too small. But those objections will likely vanish with "improvements in the quality of the video streaming video experience," thus fueling additional growth, the OMD report stated. Among those who regularly view streamed content, about one-third of respondents said they do it daily or multiple times a day. Another 14% said they do it four to six times a week, while 20% reported viewing streamed content two to three times a week. Overall growth is likely to come from older viewers -- as two-thirds of respondents 35 years old and up said they would watch more streamed content in the next 12 months than they do now, compared to only about a third of the 18- to-34-year-olds. But younger viewers will drive video streaming to additional technology platforms. About half of the respondents age 34 or younger said they planned to watch more content on portable devices in the future, compared to just 7% of those 50 and up. The top five most popular streamed genres, the study reported, are weather reports, news, full-length TV shows, celebrity news and gossip and music videos. The takeaway for advertisers, said Pamela Marsh, director of custom research and insights, OMD: "If the intent of the advertiser is to achieve larger reach," then news and weather and other "time-sensitive content" should be part of the buy. The top reasons cited for watching: entertainment, the freedom to watch at any time, to catch up on a missed programs, the ability to watch anywhere and commercial avoidance. As to formats, most of those polled said they would prefer to see an ad before a video stream than in the middle of it. And half said they would prefer to have a choice of ads to consider being exposed to as opposed to being forced to watch a specific ad. Seventy percent said they would prefer to watch funny ads in video streaming -- more than double any other ad genre.
I am going to confirm what New York Times advertising/marketing columnist Stuart Elliott all but officially proclaimed with his column this morning: We are smack dab in the middle the Annual August Advertising Doldrums. While news-generating brand marketers of the world cavort on Cape Cod and other likely destinations, Elliott grinds it out with an entertaining column on ad-related entertainment headlined, "Summer Diversions to Fill the 'Mad Men' Void." "For the last four summers, Madison Avenue has been absorbed in 'Mad Men,' the AMC series about the advertising industry in the 1960s," Elliott writes. "But a delay in production for the coming season means there are no new episodes until early next year." Elliott's alternative fixes range from a BBC series "The Hour" that he says is "evocative of 'Mad Men' despite being set in London in 1956 rather than Manhattan in the '60s." Citing colleague Alessandra Stanley's review, we learn that "this narrative also unfolds through an amber haze of cigarette smoke, whiskey and social taboos." Then there's a host of old movies you might TiVo, RedBox or Netflix stream, (including a citation of Adweek's "25 Best Advertising Movies Ever Made" by David Griner. If you're in the mood for lighter fare, there's the likes of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" on Broadway (if you're visiting the Big Apple or one of the 291 people stuck in town) or "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?," which is coming up on The Movie Channel. Speaking of lighter fare, TiVo and being stuck in town, I was vegging out in front of the TV set last night and clicked on the first of a series of shows for which I'd forgotten that I'd taken out a "season pass": IFC's "Rhett and Link: Commercial Kings." I watched the first few episodes. If you appreciate sales and marketing at its grittiest, have any affection at all in your heart for pure schlock, or just enjoy being entertained by clever people on top of their craft, it's a hoot (and a woof and a meow). Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal, a Mutt-and-Jeff pairing of a high school hoops player and his science fair buddy, are evidently best buddies since first grade in Buies Creek, N.C. While rooming together as engineering students at North Carolina State University, they taught themselves filmmaking. Then, YouTube was invented for people just like them. Their careers as "Internetainers" took off -- their main YouTube channel, as of this morning, is ranked as No. 70 "Most Subscribed (All Time)" and is No. 23 among "Comedian" sites. Their shtick is making the sort of cheesy local commercials you see on cable TV in dayparts when most people are REM-snoozing away. "The show has revived interest in wacky, late-night television commercials -- the type that are so bad, they're good," Corey Kilgannon wrote in the New York Times' "City Room" blog last week, while covering the creation of a low-budget spot by Nakia Rattray, a Bronx-based entertainer with the stage name Uncle Majic, the Hip-Hop Magician. Like Uncle Majic, Rhett and Link appreciate "the canon of New York-area low-budget commercials: spots like Crazy Eddie's, or Tom Carvel's for ice cream cakes that featured Cookie Puss or Fudgie the Whale." The first episode of "Rhett and Link: Commercial Kings" shows them creating spots for a cat motel and a doggy day-care service in Los Angeles that, beneath all the clowning around and cute animal shots that will appeal to the Aunt Millie in you, exhibit raw marketing genius. Adweek's T'L' Stanley reported earlier this summer that Rhett and Link also had initiated the LoCo Awards & Sweepstakes -- "a contest to honor other locally produced spots. They envision it as the Cannes of kitsch, or the Oscars for small-business owners who gyrate, warble, and overact their way through 30 seconds of airtime." Rhett and Link discuss the business of YouTube and their transition from the Internet to cable television with Devon Brown on CBS/What's Trending. "We embraced the fact that we needed to incorporate brands and sponsorship into what we were doing so we could make a living. We are communicating with fans all along saying this is how we're going to bring content to you," Neal tells Brown. Aspiring Internetainers and Social Media Marketers take note: They say that are "EVERYWHERE You WANT To Be":
It seems that youth-oriented cause-marketing campaigns are hitting their mark. Millennials (a/k/a Gen Y) are more aware than Americans of other generations of campaigns such as Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty (33% versus 21%) or Gap RED (26% versus 9%), according to a new study of this cohort from the Barkley marketing agency, Service Management Group and The Boston Consulting Group. Millennials also report greater exposure to such campaigns through social media (40% versus 22%) and online news (28% versus 22%). Media-wise, Millennials watch significantly less TV than do other generations. Just 26% report watching 20-plus hours per week (versus 49% of the rest of the population). Furthermore, they are much more likely to consume TV on their laptops (42% versus 18% of other generations), and somewhat more likely to watch it via DVR (40% versus 36%) or on-demand (26% versus 18%). The survey of more than 5,000 respondents probed Millennials' attitudes about cause marketing, grocery and apparel shopping, restaurants and travel, as well as digital and social media habits. Other findings:
Fox Sports chairman David Hill took a swing at boxing more than once Thursday, indicating it has limits on TV while the Ultimate Fighting Championship offers a more immersive experience. There's "boxing being one-dimensional and this thing being three-dimensional," Hill said as Fox announced a multi-year, multi-part deal to bring the UFC to various properties. Boxing has been suffering from a lack of marquee events as much as it has from any issues with camera angles. The UFC, meanwhile, is soaring in appeal among a younger audience, making it particularly attractive to Fox. The arrangement with the Fox Sports Media Group brings the mixed martial arts competition to several networks, including a broadcast network for the first time when it will debut on Fox in prime time on a Saturday this November. Going forward, the UFC will be on Fox four times a year live, either in prime time or late-night. Other aspects of the deal include reality-competition series, "Ultimate Fighter," which has been hugely successful for Spike, moving to FX in the spring. Viacom, which owns Spike, has indicated it is looking to move away from acquired programming. FX is also scheduled to air up to six live UFC events through the life of the contract, which is with UFC parent Zuffa. Other events and programming will be on Fox's Fuel TV. The UFC has been the subject of talk about coming to a broadcast network for some time, but President Dana White, said: "This what I always wanted. This is what I always thought was the pinnacle for us in the United States ... to get on Fox." A decade ago, the UFC struggled to be considered a sport and attract interest from blue-chip advertisers. White said that to people "who thought I was lunatic 10 years ago ... here we are." Even Hill had some concerns about the UFC's ability to enter the mainstream, but said its current appeal has put those to rest. Hill said Fox had discussions with many advertisers about their interest level and while "one or two companies may have a do not buy," there's an ample number ready to get on board. Word that Fox had a UFC deal was first reported by Sports Business Journal. Fox would not discuss financial terms, but after failing to win rights to the Olympics, it may have had more than a little cash on hand.
Young media consumers -- Millennials -- continue to consume much more television related to online, and less traditional television than other viewing groups. Only 26% of millennials -- typically those in the 18-29 age group -- watch more than 20 hours a week of TV, versus older viewing groups where 49% of those viewers watch 20-plus hours a week. These are among the results of a study conducted by Kansas City-based marketing company, Barkley, in partnership with Service Management Group and The Boston Consulting Group. Millennials are much more likely to watch shows mainly on their laptops -- 42% versus 18% for other viewers; on DVR playback -- 40% versus 36%; or via video-on-demand -- 26% versus 18% for other viewing groups. Largely as a result of TV marketing and other efforts, millennials -- more than older consumers -- are aware of youth-targeted cause campaigns. For example, the study says that for Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, their awareness level was 33% versus 21% for everyone else. Gap's RED campaign earned a 26% number for millennials versus 9% for other consumers. Much of this activity comes from greater exposure to campaigns through social media -- 40% versus 22% for other consumers -- and online news, 28% versus 22%. "Since the Millennials generation is larger than the Baby Boomers and three times bigger than Generation X, marketers' understanding of Millennials' needs, tastes and behaviors will clearly shape current and future business decisions," says Jeff Fromm, senior vice president, Barkley, in a release. The survey was based on more than 5,000 respondents and 3.9 million data points.
To humorously drive home the taste appeal of its new FiberPlus Caramel Pecan Crunch cereal variety, a new TV spot from Kellogg's has women engaging in a taste test pitting the cereal against luscious cupcakes. In what would appear to be an indirect spoof of General Mills's effective "Cardboard, no. Delicious, yes" commercials for its Fiber One cereals and other products, FiberPlus brand reps went to The Perfect Circle Cupcakery (Orange, Calif.) to have customers compare the taste of the new FiberPlus flavor against the bakery's famed chocolate lava cupcake. Taste testers' consensus? Great cereal, but the cupcake wins. The 60-second spot concludes with the messaging: "Not the best tasting cupcake ... the best tasting fiber. Kellogg's FiberPlus: Taste the Plus." Kellogg's and agency Leo Burnett are being mum about the spot, which represents a somewhat edgier direction than FiberPlus's previous campaign (also from Leo Burnett), featuring comedian Kieron Elliott as a "genie" who pops into homes to grant breakfast eaters' wish for a "deliciously nutritious fiber cereal." Kellogg launched FiberPlus cereal in July 2010, after the success of its FiberPlus Antioxidant Bars. General Mills's Fiber One cereal launched in 1985. The latest extension, Fiber One 80 Calories cereal, was launched in late June.
NBC has started its typically slow rise to the top of ratings on Sunday for the fall. Its "Sunday Night Football" pre-season game on a mid-August Sunday tied for best-rated show of the night. The San Diego Chargers-Dallas Cowboys pre-season game earned a Nielsen preliminary 3.3 rating/10 share among 18-49 viewers -- which, along with a "Dateline NBC" rating/share of 1.5/5 earlier in the evening -- gave the network an easy Sunday night win, averaging a 2.9 rating/8 share. A week ago, it earned a 1.0/3. CBS also pulled in a 3.3/10 for its big "Big Brother" reality show, up 22% from the week before. A week ago, the show was disrupted by the overrun of the PGA Championship. But that's where the good news for CBS ends. Repeats of "The Good Wife" at 9 p.m. and "CSI: Miami" took in a 1.0/3 and a 1.2/3, respectively. CBS was in second place, over a full rating point behind NBC with a 1.7/5 among 18-49 viewers, and two-tenths of a rating point lower than the week before. ABC was next with a 1.3/4, one-tenth lower than the week before. ABC's new episodes of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" and "20/20: The Sixth Sense" rang up a 1.1/3 and 1.4/4, respectively. Fox had reruns of three of its Sunday comedies, and its 9:30 p.m. variety show, "In the Flow with Affion Crockett," earned a 1.2/3 -- the same numbers it earned a week before. Fox scored a 1.2/3 for the night overall, the same results as the previous week. Univision also earned a 1.2/3 for the night, up one-tenth from last Sunday.
While HDTV penetration is growing markedly in the U.S., a new report suggests that it is set for a boom globally. Informa Telecoms & Media, the research firm, projects that HDTVs will be in 131 million homes by the end of the year -- a figure that should triple by 2016. The bulk of the sets are still in the U.S., where HD content continues to expand. Nielsen recently projected that about 77 million homes have an HD set, up 20% from a year ago. This year worldwide, 34 million homes will add an HD set, according to Informa. The company suggests that free over-the-air broadcasters in certain countries are increasingly offering HD feeds of sports events, such as the Olympics and World Cup. This is critical, because broad penetration will only occur when the free broadcasters offer HD content, as they do widely in the U.S. Informa notes that massive growth has occurred since 2005, and by the end of 2016, it predicts that many countries will be nearing a point when most homes will be heavy HD consumers. That could bring a round of upgrades to an "UltraHD" model.
DirecTV is looking to boost appeal for its "Sunday Ticket" product among devoted fantasy football players, offering live updates in partnership with the NFL. In addition, access to its "Sunday Ticket To-Go" package will be expanded to a slew of devices, including the iPad. Fantasy players using NFL.com as their platform who have the proper set-top box will be able to access an app that allows them to keep up with their teams live on-screen while watching "Sunday Ticket" games. Also, there's a chance to click a "Watch Now" icon attached to a specific player that automatically switches to the game where he's playing. Access to "Sunday Ticket To-Go" will be available through iOS devices, tablets from Motorola and Samsung, BlackBerry devices with 3G and other mobile platforms for the first time. The service also offers the ability to view the Red Zone Channel on the go. Games will also be available to all "Sunday Ticket" through the PlayStation 3. Tony Goncalves, a senior vice president at DirecTV, stated that with "the growth in mobile and connected consumer electronics devices, we believe it makes sense to enable viewers to watch ... on more of those devices," including gaming consoles. Traditional "Sunday Ticket" goes for $334.95 for the season, although there is a promotion for "no extra charge" with a two-year commitment.
Ramping up some big fall-season sports programming -- and closing down some summer reality shows -- were the highlights on this mid Thursday in August. Early Nielsen results show a NFL pre-season game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Pittsburgh Steelers gave Fox a moderately healthy 3.3 rating/10 share among 18-49 viewers, the best-rated program of the night. CBS's strong summer reality effort, "Big Brother," took in a 3.0/5 -- down slightly from its preliminary numbers a week ago. A week ago, the show was also affected by the NFL -- partly due to local TV stations running NFL pre-season games. Likewise, ABC witnessed some declines from its Thursday shows for the same reasons. "Wipeout" was flat at a 1.9/7; "Expedition Impossible" was down 20% to a 1.3/4; and "Rookie Blue" was off 14% to a 1.2/4. Everything else was in repeats on the broadcast networks. For the night, according to Nielsen, Fox preliminarily averaged among 18-49 viewers with a 3.0/9; CBS earned a 2.0/9; ABC scored a 1.5/5; Univision took a 1.3/4; NBC earned a 0.8/3; and CW finished at a 0.3/1. The Thursday before, CBS was on top in early results with a 2.3/7; Fox (without an NFL game) had a 2.1/7; followed by ABC at a 1.6/5; Univision with a 1.3/4; NBC at a 1.0/3; and CW with a 0.4/1.
Early morning network shows are seeing an overall tighter ratings race than in the last few years -- although "Today" is still far ahead among key viewers. ABC News says "Good Morning America" is attracting its biggest overall viewer audience in four years -- since 2006-2007 -- moving to the smallest viewer gap to NBC's "The Today Show" in four years. "GMA" averaged a Nielsen 4.343 total viewers and a 1.656 million among adults 25-54 during the week of August 8, 2011. This is a 14% improvement in total viewers and an 8% gain in 25-54 viewers from the week before. Season-to-date, "GMA", has gained 10% in total viewers versus a year ago. NBC's "Today" and CBS' "The Early Show" are also higher -- with "Today" picking up 2% and "Early" adding 1% in total viewers. "GMA" has grown 2% season-to-date among adults 25-54. Weekly numbers have "Today" in the lead, with 4.993 million total viewers and 2.2 million 25-54 viewers. "GMA" is at 4.343 million and 1.656 million 25-54 viewers. "Early" is at 2.224 million total viewers and 867,000 adult 25-54 viewers. Recently "Today" made some major on-air moves, with co-host Meredith Vieira departing in June and Ann Curry moving up to co-host with Matt Lauer.
UPDATED WITH CLARIFICATION. Last week's Social Media Insider Summit in Lake Tahoe saw a series of great presentations addressing some of the cutting-edge issues in social media marketing -- including of course measurement and analytics, always a favorite topic for media types and especially important for making social media transparent and accountable, which will in turn allow it to attract more ad dollars. But one presentation, by Nielsen research manager for measurement science Nina Stratt Lerner, was interesting for addressing social media as a source of information about consumer sentiment -- specifically buzz about TV shows, and its relation to actual program ratings over time, which should allow TV broadcasters (and advertisers) to make predictions about the popularity of shows. The Nielsen case study tracked the volume of online buzz over the course of the TV season for four shows: "Jersey Shore," "The Bachelor," "Modern Family" and "Gossip Girl." As one might expect, for most of the shows there is a preliminary spike around the premiere, followed by slowly (and unevenly) mounting buzz in mid-season, and then a big spike around the finale. Where is all this buzz occurring? Interestingly, Nielsen found that discussion boards and blogs were far and away the biggest sources of buzz about TV shows, compared to Facebook (including Groups). In fact, the volume of buzz on Facebook including Groups basically appeared to flatline across the TV season, while blogs and discussion boards showed increasing buzz along the lines described above. Nielsen also found that online buzz tends to correlate with actual ratings more strongly among younger demos than older demos: for the 50+ cohort, the correlation is low across the board (males, females, and all persons), while buzz in the 35-49 set is somewhat correlated, and the highest correlation between buzz and actual ratings is seen among 12-17-year-olds. I'm guessing that the overall volume of buzz is also higher among the younger demos (although I suppose there could be millions of 50-something women breathlessly posting about Gossip Girl). Lerner's presentation also included an interesting graph showing correlation between buzz and actual TV ratings for broadcast versus cable TV. For some reason (I'm curious why this might be) the correlation between buzz and ratings is quite a bit higher for broadcast TV than it is for cable. Is it simply that broadcast TV shows tend to have a wider distribution and larger audience, including a larger -- and therefore more representative -- crowd of social media users? I'd be interested to hear any thoughts readers have on this. (As I write this I see that Nielsen just launched a new social media measurement and analytics service, BuzzMetrics Exchange, which the company is billing as "a full service social media monitoring and engagement platform," designed to allow clients to directly engage with consumers who are talking about their brands online.) Correction and Clarification: This column originally attributed the research to Nielsen, but in fact it was performed by NM Incite, a joint venture of Nielsen and McKinsey. Additionally, although only four TV shows were discussed in the presentation, the full study actually covered 250 shows. Finally, it should be noted that the portion of the study addressing Facebook buzz versus blogs and discussion forums only looked at public-facing Facebook fan pages, which may explain the lower volume found there.
The media landscape shifted seismically yet again last week with Google's announcement of plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. In what appears to be a brilliant move, Google managed to consolidate its positions in the three screens of media -- computing, television, and mobile -- in one fell swoop. This is as big a deal in the media and tech space as has come along in years. While industry pundits have speculated on Google's reasons for the acquisition, my bet is that Google's longer-term rationale for the move is about data. With unprecedented access to data from mobile devices, browsers, ad networks, and set-top boxes, Google will ultimately be able to take audience targeting to entirely new levels within and across platforms. Even in the near term, though, the implications of this deal for those of us in the TV space will be at least as significant as they are for Google's current mobile manufacturing partners (who, at the moment, must still be trying to figure out which way is up). Here's why. The Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility is a three-legged stool, resting on mobility, television, and intellectual property (patents). First, mobility is all about computing anywhere, and that's where our world is headed. Computing at home, on the go, in the air, on TV, and anywhere else you can imagine. But what is computing? Now it includes any media, anytime. And Google has a powerful and popular mobile platform in Android. Combining it with Motorola's manufacturing prowess could bring Google the tight integration between hardware and software that Apple has. (But will this mean Android becomes a walled garden?) Second, as for television, with Motorola Mobility Google gains fully half of the market in set-top-box manufacturing, giving it a more demonstrable foothold in the home. Google TV hasn't gained the traction Google had hoped for, but with the integration of set-top boxes, Google TV will be able to provide a far more compelling and immersive television experience than it has yet been able to deliver. And if it really wanted to leverage the television piece, the possibilities are near endless. I mean, think about what the android platform is -- an interactive entertainment platform on your big screen at home. Of course, the jury's still out on how involved Google will be - and how involved MSOs will allow Google to be - on the television front, but things could definitely start to get interesting. I know I'll be watching closely for Google's next move on this front, as I'm sure will many of you. And then there are the patents - more than 17,000 in all (plus 7,500 applications). More and more, companies are beginning to appreciate the value of patents as an essential driver of innovation. Patents protect firms' investments in innovation; without them, individual competitors would be unable to help move an industry forward. Even in our little corner of the tech industry, there have been a surprising number of patent disputes over the last several months, with at least three pairs of competitors engaged in lawsuits even as I write (including, in the interest of full disclosure, my own company's row with WPP). Google has often gotten the short end of the IP stick. (Just last month, it lost out on a bid for Nortel's patent portfolio to a consortium that included Apple and Microsoft.) But with the patents Google is set to acquire from Motorola, it'll have ample IP ammo to defend itself from competitors seeking to slow it down on the mobile and television fronts. Of course, even from the security of its Motorola-amped position, Google will face some formidable challenges in consolidating the operations and assets of the two firms. First, there will be the cultural challenges. The two companies share certain characteristics in common, but in many ways -- from dress code to cafeteria menus -- they couldn't be more different. With Motorola's strong identity and near parity on employee population, the cultural pendulum isn't likely to shift easily in Google's direction, either. Another major challenge will involve Google's acquisition of a second-place position in TV. After all, Motorola only owns half of the set-top-box marketplace; the other has belonged to Cisco since its 2006 acquisition of Scientific Atlanta. Even as it inherits a rich legacy of innovation from General Instrument (part of Motorola since 2000), which led the digital revolution in 1989 with the first digital HDTV submission, Google will find it more difficult to drive the entire TV industry as it has the online ad marketplace. Finally, the acquisition introduces a new level of complexity -- and a new kind of impetus for partnership -- to Google's business. Google has not enjoyed the best reputation when it comes to partnering in a complex ecosystem (see: Viacom); this at least partly explains why Google TV hasn't yet found its legs. Will Google's relationships with its 39 Android mobile hardware licensees remain intact as Google itself joins the manufacturing ranks? We'll all have to stay tuned to find out.
Programming executives live for "lightning in a bottle": out-of-nowhere shows that hit it big. But can reality shows with hard real-life components hit too hard? And start fires? The husband of one of the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" committed suicide recently. Real-life tragedies surrounding reality shows aren't new -- there have been other suicides and attempted suicides, as well as criminal activity such as stalking. Advertisers understand the risks -- and some have glommed on to these efforts even though many shows have changed drastically. TLC's original "Jon & Kate Plus 8" turned upside down after a couple of years: A friendly little family show about a couple struggling to raise eight kids ended up documenting a tawdry breakup. "Jon & Kate" was originally bought by advertisers because it promised a safe "family" reality show to run their messages against. Then the content changed big-time. Marketers then had a choice -- stay in, with short-term big ratings gains, or leave. Producers can do a whole lot in the editing process of reality shows -- such as framing someone to be the "bad" guy" -- but when real life works itself into the mix, they need to adjust. So do marketers. Bravo says it will delay September's start of "Real Housewives," probably to re-edit some things. But it is not canceling the series. In the past, some reality shows had no choice. A couple of years ago, VH1 pulled a couple of reality shows when a contestant who was a suspect in the killing of his ex-wife killed himself. With "Housewives," some of this drama is already there. You expect talk of divorce, scandal and betrayal. But do you expect suicide? Years ago, TV advertisers had real-life "hit lists" -- those shows and topics where they didn't want their advertising to run. Airline advertisers didn't want to be in a movie of the week where, say, an airline crashed in the storyline; Japanese-based automotive makers didn't want to be in some World War II movies. The question is: Are advertisers more accepting of risky content now than they were years ago -- or are they more discerning, given the plethora of TV media platforms available?
I have been in Los Angeles for the last few weeks, and at every turn I have heard somebody talking about ABC's silly sophomore series "Bachelor Pad," which made its season premiere August 8. At the beginning of my trip the talk was all eager anticipation. During the last two weeks it was all about the show itself. Thank God I'm heading home soon. "Bachelor Pad" is nothing more than a mindless exercise in sexual attraction and half-dressed recreation; an empty diversion custom-designed to make the traditional dog days of August less of a drag, I guess. Of course, from where I sit, August isn't such a mutt anymore, not with so many great scripted shows on basic and pay cable. On the unscripted front, Food Network's just-concluded "The Next Food Network Star," HGTV's "Design Star" and Oxygen's "The Glee Project" stand out among dozens of summer reality entries. They're fun, smart, emotionally engaging and don't leave you feeling that yet another hour of your life has slipped away into nothingness. (I have to say that with Cathy Knows Best Hobbs eliminated from "Design Star" last Sunday, I fear the show might lose a little of its entertainment value as the season progresses.) Competition comes in many varieties, especially on television, but for many, "Bachelor Pad" is prime stuff. Maybe it's the hot mix (or is it mess) of interchangeable past contestants from "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" grouped together, stripped down and encouraged to re-engage with each other in all manner of ways. When they aren't drinking, trying to hook up or crying about something, they're made to compete in nutty "Big Brother"-style competitions, often with considerably less clothing. This week, the men were made to line up with their backs to the women, who then threw paint-filled eggs at the men they most wanted to see eliminated; then the men returned the indignity. The outcomes of such challenges can lead to bragging rights, dates, immunity from the week's painful eliminations or other perks. (Enduring humiliation while avoiding elimination is important: The last hottie in the pad will collect a cool $250,000.) Surprises abound. Two people are supposed to be ejected from the house at the end of each episode, but this week three people went home. Jackie was chosen for elimination, Gia left because she was betrayed by a friend, and Ames, who's in love with Jackie and couldn't bear to be separated from her, decided to bolt. (How long would Jackie and Ames have actually been apart, anyway? I can't believe the total production time for the entire season exceeds two weeks.) I'm giving this show more thought than it's due, though ardent fans might disagree. But I will offer this: "Pad" often has more sizzle than many carefully plotted daytime and primet-ime serials, so maybe it's on to something. Meantime, anyone looking for a show in which men and women really mix it up, seemingly without any shame at all, should check out GSN's "Baggage," now in its exciting second season. It's hosted by trash-talk titan Jerry Springer, which says a lot right there. Throughout each galvanizing half hour, men and women attempt to attract each other by revealing increasingly intimate (and often ugly) secrets about themselves. The secrets are concealed in briefcases, giving it all a "Deal or No Deal" vibe. (The bigger the case, the more startling the secret contained therein.) The prize for putting themselves out there is a far cry from the cool quarter mil on "Bachelor Pad": just dinner for two. Here are some of the secrets I've seen revealed in recent episodes, some from men looking to impress a woman, some from women looking to impress a man: "I urinated in an ex's gas tank." "I have a library of my own sex tapes." "I love cheese so much it's tattooed on my butt." "I sleep in a horse stall." "I stole from a homeless man." "I have a room devoted to 10,000 sci-fi action figures." "I made a living taking experimental drugs." "I broadcast and rate my man's performance on the radio." "I only shave my legs once every 2 ½ months." "I've lost women because of my oversized testicles." "My ex-husband chose the psych ward over me." "I tied a woman to a hotel bed and left her there." Plainly, one can learn more about the human condition and affairs of the heart by choosing "Baggage" over "Bachelor Pad." It's amazing what people will do for a free dinner.
It sounded cheeky, outrageous, downright strange -- which means it smelled like some PR stunt. Guess what? It was. And it worked. Everyone wrote about it, including MediaPost (but not without some questions). If you are Abercrombie & Fitch, looking to glom onto the highest-rated TV show for young people in the summer, what better way to snag some fish (reporters) in the summer, which can be a dull time for stories? At first, it seemed like a strange reverse-product-placement deal: A&F wanted to "pay" Mike Sorrentino, aka "The Situation," for not wearing its clothes on "Jersey Shore" because it was hurting the company's "image." This offer was also extended to other cast members. Maybe. An A&F chief executive said the retailer was "having fun with this." Bottom line: How much did A&F pay for such attention? Zero. That's some nice media budget ROI working there. This comes along with recent data showing that while branded entertainment is still a good buy, many marketers have less confidence in the post-buy metrics on what they're actually getting. Press clippings are another matter. MTV execs fired back with with an Open Rebuttal To A Certain Clothing Retailer Who Dissed Our 'Sitch.'" We don't know if A&F is a big MTV advertiser. But if it isn't, all this might push A&F to become one. (MTV ought to issue a press release seeking the faux cast member payments.) Seems that there is always some "controversy" around "Jersey Shore." Early on, this came from public interest groups who were upset the MTV show didn't portray young Italian-Americans in the right light. A&F jumped on this PR in the peak summertime period because the show can be a lightning rod for all sorts of stuff. And back-to-school business is around the corner. Young-skewing marketers don't always have many opportunities to grab large amounts of young viewers in key TV shows -- because many viewers are elusive and slippery, moving around to other media, especially digital, very quickly. Young-skewing marketers like A&F need to be cool and to charm their young customers in different ways - even something fleeting, even something that appears opposite of what the marketer publicly says it wants.
In a previous Video Insider post, I wrote that demographic changes in our population perhaps amplified, or were even mistaken for, cord-cutting data. The crux of this was the decline in the 18-49 age audience for broadcasters. This is a critical audience metric that drives the approximately $70 billion television advertising market. Traditionally, this is so because the 18-49 audience is considered to be the heaviest consumers and buyers of goods and services advertised on television. In my earlier post, I suggested that as our population ages and the last of the baby boomers migrate out of this demographic, its overall size is not growing as fast as it did, and in fact the older of this demographic -- who are actually reaching their peak earning and spending years - is actually declining. One adjunct point that I left out of the original post was the question of whether 18-49 demographic actually mattered as much as we count on it to, or whether it was a vestige of some legacy limitation or consideration. Surely as measurement technologies advance and we have better ad targeting capabilities for television, actual content viewing and response to advertising will outweigh the age metric. In another post on this topic in Gigaom, "Bad news for Nielsen: TV ads to be bought more like online ads," Ryan Lawler quotes Michael Hayes, president of Initiative Digital, suggesting that the 18-49 demographic does not matter because what matters is the buying behavior and intent, regardless of age and gender. If we can measure this -- which is the goal with digital ads and IP enabled set top boxes - then the age demographic is irrelevant. I could not agree more with these statements. At the same time, even without getting to the highly measurable state of television advertising with new IP-based solutions, it seems that marketers and media buyers would have other important considerations given what we already know of aging demographics of our population. I don't claim to be a statistician or a sociologist. I am a consumer of data rather than creator or aggregator of it, such as is done by analytics firms like Nielsen and comScore. At the same time, as a marketer, I cannot help but point out another shift in consumer behavior that is noteworthy to marketers. There is some truth in statements like "40 is the new 30," and "50 is the new 40." People are living longer, healthier lives, and older people today live more like their much younger counterparts of before. I suspect very little of this idea has been incorporated into the media buying considerations, given the 18-49 criterion has been static for some time. As IP connectivity continues to mushroom for TV playback devices, such as is happening in spades already, expect to see the media buying landscape shift as well. How quickly this happens will be subject to the big blocks of consumer demand, content services, and device penetration coming into formation. It will not happen overnight, but much faster than one would have predicted a few years ago, given the tectonic shifts already happening in the media industry.
According to the Nielsen Cross Platform Report, Americans are spending more time watching video content on traditional TVs, mobile devices and via the Internet than ever. Overall TV viewership increased 22 minutes per month per person over last year, demonstrating moderate growth and remaining the dominant source of video content for all demographics. Even the lowest fifth quintile of TV viewers still averages an hour of TV consumption per day, with the highest quintile tuning in for nearly ten hours per day. Mobile video viewing continues to see marked gains, with the number of Americans watching video on their mobile devices increasing 41% over last year and more than 100% since 2009. Time shifted TV continues to grow, both in the penetration of DVR devices in the home and the time spent. Internet video streaming also saw increases in time spent; this behavior is the highest among a younger and diverse subset of the population. Over the past year, satellite and telephone company-delivered TV subscriptions increased while subscriptions to wired cable decreased slightly. Broadcast-only households remained stagnant. Two thirds of TV homes now have an HDTV, an increase of more than 20% over last year. Slightly less than half have a video game console or a DVR, 45% and 40%, respectively. Television Distribution Sources - Number of Households (in 000's)Market Break Q1 11 Q4 10 Q1 10 Broadcast Only 11,193 11,147 11,170 Wired Cable 62,651 63,393 64,951 Telco 7,654 7,339 6,042 Satellite 34,297 34,273 32,877 Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011. (Based on Quarterly Universe Estimates.) African-Americans watch the most video content, including traditional TV and mobile video, though less timeshifted TV than the general population. Asians have emerged as the hands-down leader in time spent watching video on the Internet, averaging six-plus hours more per month than Whites and nearly four hours more per month than the next closest ethnic group, Hispanics. Asians also watch far less traditional TV than the general population-more than a third less than Whites and half as much as African-Americans. Like Asians, Hispanics watch less traditional TV but more Internet video than the general population, but to a less extreme degree. Video Audience Composition - Monthly Time Spent in Hours: Minutes - Ethnicity & Race WhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanicAsian On Traditional TV 155:33 212:53 135:42 100:25 Watching Timeshifted TV (all TV homes) 11:55 7:37 6:56 8:14 DVR Playback (only in homes with DVRs) 26:59 22:12 24:03 22:47 Watching Video on Internet 3:57 5:52 6:24 10:19 Mobile Subscribers Watching Video on a Mobile Phone 3:37 6:30 4:20 4:20 Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011. (Based on total users of each media.) Satellite, broadcast-only and wired cable delivery of TV content is nearly even among three of the four ethnic groups tracked, with Hispanics being the outliers. They are more likely to get satellite or be broadcast-only than Whites, African-Americans and Asians, and much less likely to get wired cable. Television Distribution Sources by Ethnicity White African-AmericanHispanic Asian Broadcast Only 9% 11% 15% 10% Wired Cable 61% 63% 51% 65% Telco 7% 7% 6% 9% Satellite 31% 27% 35% 27% Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 Age plays an interesting role in video audience consumption across media, with the age groups 25-34, 35-49 and 50-64 each dominating a specific platform. Traditional TV viewership steadily increases with age, so it comes as no surprise that Adults 50-64 make up the largest segment of the traditional TV audience (25%). The largest segment of the Internet video audience is Adults 35-49 (27%), while the largest segment of the mobile video audience is 25-34 year olds (30%). A Week in the Life: Weekly Time Spent in Hours: Minutes 2-1112-1718-2425-3435-4950-6465+P2+Hispanic 2+African-American 2+ On Traditional TV 26:31 24:21 26:28 30:34 36:23 44:54 49:17 35:37 30:42 47:37 WatchingTimeshifted TV 1:49 1:31 1:30 3:11 3:11 2:48 1:40 2:25 1:34 1:42 Using the Internet on a computer 0:40 1:45 5:31 8:29 8:34 7:20 3:55 5:43 4:10 4:54 Watching Video on Internet 0:07 0:20 0:48 0:57 0:38 0:25 0:12 0:33 0:32 0:30 Mobile Subscribers Watching Video on a Mobile Phone NA 0:20 0:15 0:10 0:05 0:02 <0:01 0:07 0:12 0:13 Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 (Uniquely based on the Total Population in the US; all 297 million Americans over age 2) The new trend among our TV and Internet homes shows the lightest traditional television users streaming significantly more Internet video via their computers, and the heaviest streamers under-indexing for traditional TV viewership. This behavior is led by those ages 18-34.The group of consumers exhibiting this behavior is significant but small. More than a third of the TV/Internet population is not streaming, whereas less than 1% are not watching TV. Usage:Number of Users 2+ (in 000's) - Monthly Reach Q1 11 Q4 10Q1 10% Diff Yr to Yr Watching TV in the home 288,500 289,284 286,225 0.8% Watching Timeshifted TV (all TV homes) 107,065 105,936 94,599 13.2% Using the Internet on a computer 190,913 191,237 191,301 -0.2% Watching Video on Internet 142,437 141,420 135,855 4.8% Using a Mobile Phone 231,000 230,300 229,495 0.7% Mobile Subscribers Watching Video on a Mobile Phone 28,538 24,708 20,284 41.0% Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 Hispanic mobile subscribers are the most likely to have a smartphone, while White mobile subscribers are the least. The greater use of smartphones could be linked to Hispanics watching more video on their mobile devices than the general population. Likewise, the availability of Spanish-language channels available on satellite continues to drive the increased number of Hispanics who opt for satellite-delivery of their TV content. Mobile Device Penetration by Ethnicity WhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanicAsian Smartphone 30% 39% 53% 48% Feature phone 70% 61% 47% 52% Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 Cord Swapping: Debunking the myth that consumers are no longer willing to pay for television content subscriptions, Nielsen found that 91% of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in Q1 2011. Instead, evidence points to a slight reshuffling of the method selected, whether cable, through telephone companies or satellite. For additional information from Nielsen , and access to the PDF report, please visit here.
CIMM is taking a pro-active role in advancing new media nomenclature and processes with both its Lexicon(terms and definitions associated with Set-Top-Box data measurement) and Asset Identification Primer (glossary of asset terms). These documents form the basis of the Word-A-Week column which offers a common language for Set-Top Box nomenclature that can expedite the roll-out of the data for its many industry applications. The word "augmentation" generally conjures up... ahem... physical enhancement. While we are not talking biceps or chests in this column, we are talking about more than just an average and expected program, commercial or viewing experience. In the STB world, augmentation -- whether real or virtual -- is made possible through the use of Advanced Advertising capabilities. It provides the viewer and content user unique and enhanced experiences. More, in this case, is certainly better. The challenge is how to measure this cross-platform opportunity. Can we adapt current standard metrics, or do we need to create a new set of metrics that more accurately reflect the changing and multi-platform marketplace? But let's save that for later columns. AR abbr Augmented RealitySee also: Augmented Virtuality, Advanced Advertising CIMM DEFINITION : The ability to combine video content with interactive features on the same screen so that it is interactive, real-time and is registered in 3D. Mixing reality with virtuality on the same screen. 2 : Augmented Reality is closer to the real environment while Augmented Virtuality is closer to the virtual environment. (Source: Wikipedia) NOTE - This is currently available in smartphones as an app. For example, standing in a subway station and seeing the station -- but then there is a virtual overlay of nearby restaurants, art galleries, etc. Augmented VirtualitySee also: Augmented Reality, Advanced Advertising CIMM DEFINITION : Like Augmented Reality, Augmented Virtuality combines real video content with interactive features to make it more virtual. AV is further along the reality / virtuality continuum in that it is more to the point of virtual than to the point of reality. Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.
"Glee: The 3D Concert Movie" hasn't conquered movie theaters --- unlike what the franchise accomplished with television, iTune downloads, and live concert tours. Seems "Glee" took one entertainment step too many. Fox Filmed Entertainment looked to do what any modern media company with a big valuable asset would do -- eke out a few more shekels, not the least of which would come from a premium 3D ticket price. The movie -- with a pretty nice wide release on over 2,000 screens -- earned a humble $6 million this past weekend, coming in 11th place among all movies. But, one Fox executive told The Wrap, the studio knew the film wouldn't be a lock, that it could be going into "uncharted waters." "Glee"'s pedigree wouldn't have signaled this. Even before its premiere a couple of seasons ago, Fox television executives had sold the show highly to critics as the next big thing. And -- rare for such claims - "Glee" delivered big juicy ratings. Next came those music sales, then the concerts. All that is hard to do in the ever-more competitive entertainment world. And give "Glee" some more credit: It will honor its storyline. Those "Glee" kids entering their senior year this season will need to "graduate" -- that is, leave the show. (Hey, the cast of Disney Channel's "High School Musical" needed to graduate as well. And, mind you, there is already talk of a "Glee" spinoff.) What went wrong with the movie? While "Glee" has done a lot for Fox in its short history, some critics say fans perhaps didn't need more of the "Glee"-sters singing songs they had already heard on the TV show, via iTunes, or in concert. Reasons the film might have worked included:
More interesting insights from Nielsen on online buzz and TV shows: discussion boards and blogs are far and away the biggest sources of buzz about TV shows, compared to Facebook (including Groups). In fact, the volume of buzz on Facebook including Groups basically looks like it flatlines across the TV season, while blogs and discussion boards show increasing buzz along the lines described in the previous blog post.
Nielsen found that online buzz tends to correlate with actual ratings more strongly among younger demos than older demos: for the 50+ cohort, the correlation is low across the board (males, females, and all persons), 35-49 is somewhat correlated, and the highest correlation between buzz and actual ratings is seen among 12-17-year-olds. I'm guessing that the overall volume of buzz is higher among the younger demos (although I suppose there could be millions of 50-something women breathlessly posting about Gossip Girl).
Nina Stratt Lerner from Nielsen presented some great data from Nielsen's research on the connection between online buzz and TV viewership, which shouldallow TV broadcasters (and advertisers) to make predictive observations. One slide shows the volume of online buzz over the course of the TV season for four shows: Jersey Shore, The Bachelor, Modern Family, and Gossip Girl. For most of the shows there is a preliminary spike around the premiere, followed by slowly mounting buzz in mid-season, and then a big spike around the finale.