Cable networks and broadcast networks appear to be performing at mostly the same pace -- with little change in viewership in the fourth quarter. Looking at Nielsen live plus seven days viewing data through Dec. 11, the broadcast networks had no change in either 18-49 viewers (10.9 overall rating) or total viewers (12.3 rating) from the fourth quarter of 2010 -- per a research report from Turner Broadcasting. Total ad-supported cable rose 1% in 18-49 to a 18.6 rating and remained unchanged in total viewership, holding at 19.1. Analyzing key top 10 cable networks, things were better. Those bigger networks climbed 7% during the period to a collective 6.9 rating, and 1% up among total viewers to a 6.4 rating. There is good news for both broadcast networks and the top 10 cable networks. Both climbed 2% in household ratings, 22.3 and 12.0, respectively. Overall ad-supported cable had no change, at a 36.7 rating. Turner says DVR penetration is now at 45.1% among TV homes and 42.7% among overall viewers, as of November 2011. This is up from November's 2010 numbers: 38.3% an 40.5%, respectively. Total viewing has grown year to year in terms of hours viewed per person in a given week. Most of the rise has come from cable networks and other sources. Total viewing is now at 34.1 hours a week, up from 33.9 hours a week -- year-to-date. Ad-supported cable is now at 17.0 hours up from 16.6, with "other" sources at 9.4 hours, the same versus a year ago. The four broadcast networks viewing per week declined to 7.8 hours from 7.9 hours a year ago.
The definition of television, and the business models that make it possible, are changing as fast as a weak primetime lineup, report the Wall Street Journal’s Jessica E. Vascellaro and Sam Schechner, and Apple is reportedly getting closer to throwing another monkey wrench into the creaky machinery that is as dated as a Sunday night appointment with “Bonanza.” Apple has been discussing its plans with media executives, although no content deals have been cut, and it appears that one major feature of the developing technology would be to allow users to download content once but view it on multiple devices by bringing it into its iCloud. “Apple is one of a number of companies rushing to re-imagine TV by making it resemble watching video on devices like computers and tablets,” write Vascellaro and Schechner. “Like Apple, these companies are taking the approach of trying to tie together the multitude of devices consumers use daily but that don't currently talk to each other.” Technology that would allow users to control these devices through Siri voice commands “may take longer than some of its other ideas,” according to the piece. That might be the best thing that could ever happen to it, if you agree with ZDnet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, who writes a provocative piece headlined, “It's not 'Apple TV' any more, it's 'Siri TV' ... ugh ...” That sentiment would run counter to Jamie Condliffe’s on Gizmodo: “It seems likely that all Apple devices could soon be controlled by Siri -- and why stop there? If Siri soon works like it should, there's pretty much no limit to what it can be used for. I wanna see a house controlled by Siri; I want my car to respond accurately to my command; I don't want to touch a keyboard ever, ever again.” Apple is reportedly working on a new TV device that could deliver these innovations but it’s not clear if it would be the cornerstone to the company’s strategy or not. The current Apple TV set-top box, which retails for $99 and offers access to everything from HD movie rentals via Netflix to MLB games to access to your personal iTunes and iPhoto content, reportedly is a good seller, although Apple has not released recent figures. “What’s interesting –- though perhaps unexpected –- is that many of Apple’s plans could well be delivered with an updated Apple TV, the existing $99 [set-top box] that offers streaming access to iTunes rentals and purchased content in iCloud,” observes Slashgear’s Chris Davies. “Thatopens the door for both options to remain on sale, rather than the Apple television set killing off the Apple TV; those with lower budgets may have to get used to reduced functionality in the updated Apple TV, however, so that the Cupertino company can keep rights-holders happy.” As innovative as Apple may be, there are some who fear that it may be too imperial for its own -- and consumers’, suppliers’ and competitors’ -– good. The New York Times’ Jenna Wortham reports that Apple will begin its annual holiday break from accepting new apps in its tightly controlled App Store this Thursday. The eight-day hiatus has developers in a frenzy to complete new apps in time to be on the digital display shelf for Christmas. Sales can multiply like, well, like smartphone apps at this time of year. “It is hard to begrudge Apple for wanting to give its employees a break,” Wortham writes. “But the App Store freeze at Christmas, and the crunch time leading up to it, underscore Apple’s power in the world of mobile apps and the lengths developers are willing to go to meet its demands. In short, Apple is a powerful gatekeeper, and for more than a week it is keeping the gate closed.” At the risk of being a party to Apple’s alleged flaunting of Samsung’s patent on text emoticons (but only if you’re readying this on a mobile device), the latter’s latest court action brings a decided sense of “Σ(;).” to the Los Angeles Times’ David Sarno. Samsung says it owns the rights to prefabricated emoticon strings that allow users to the sentiment with a single touch. “Believe it or not, Samsung does indeed own a patent on smartphone use of emoticons…,” Sarno writes. “The bizarreness of two global electronics powerhouses fighting over emoticons is only deepened when you see that the symbols at issue are not the newfangled illustrated and colorful emoticons you see in apps like this, but rather the old-fashioned parentheses-and-colon kind that many of us have come to abhor.” How else to keep attorney’s (and pundits) fat and :-)?
‘Tis the season for wistful recollections about the year past and shining optimism about what the future might bring. For me it is, anyway. Looking back, it’s been another roller coaster of a year in television. A few highlights:
"The X Factor" didn't do "American Idol"-like numbers this fall -- but it gave Fox some high notes for the season. Fox gained mightily this fall -- growing some 14% in its live-plus-seven-day rating. "X-Factor" filled a big gap for Fox and, coupled with surprising "New Girl," the network did well. Give major kudos to Fox, which has topped the charts as the number one network among the key 18-49 viewers for many seasons. Now, Fox is about to take its usual next step: the return of "American Idol" for another season, its 11th. Going into fall, Fox did its best to position "X-Factor" as the next big thing -- virtually telling consumers that the new singing contest show would be similar to "American Idol." In marketing materials, former "Idol" judge Simon Cowell was heavily touted -- with his image and, of cours, his typical entertaining and caustic remarks. So now the shoe could be on the other foot: what effect will "X-Factor" have on "American Idol"? Critics have predicted the demise of "American Idol" for years. But it has been able to endure -- through changing judges and formats, and by adding a key Thursday night airing. "American Idol" remains TV's top rated series. Last season, it averaged an 8.8 rating among 18-49 viewers for its Wednesday performance show and a 7.7 ratings for its Thursday results show. By comparison "X-Factor" through December 11 has a 3.9 rating for its Tuesday performance show and a 3.7 for its Wednesday result show. Not exactly "Idol"-like, but a strong primetime show in its own right. Odds are "American Idol" should not be worried about much -- other than whatever normal viewer erosion many expect from a show over a decade old. In some ways, the changes "Idol" made a year ago -- adding Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler -- should help viewers in identifying significant differences between it and “X-Factor.” "Idol" is a much gentler competition show that doesn't have a mentoring component. "X-Factor" has Cowell's brusque persona attached as well as the mentoring segments. If anything, the bigger worry for "American Idol" might be a more heavily marketed NBC show, "The Voice", which last year averaged a powerful 5.4 rating with 18-49 viewers. That show will again run in the spring, the same time frame as "Idol" -- but not completely head-to-head on the same nights. Even when the two shows competed against each other last year, "Idol" won handily. With this in mind, a bigger question is what, if any, new "Idol" brand messaging Fox will release. Whatever it is, considering all that has been thrown at it, one should Idol-ize "Idol."