The "American Idol" watch continues -- somewhat predictably -- with still-decent numbers and a neck-and-neck battle with CBS' "Big Bang Theory." While the longtime Fox show is still down some 25% in viewership versus a year ago, its week-to-week numbers have stabilized. For its Thursday results shows -- typically producing lower numbers than its Wednesday performance shows -- the hour-long "Idol" at 8 p.m. actually improved two-tenths of one rating point from the week before to a Nielsen preliminary 5.7 rating/16 share among 18-49 viewers and 17.9 million overall viewers. For its account, CBS' "Big Bang Theory" continues to keep pace -- with a 5.5/16 and 16 million viewers. But during the common half-hour where "Bang" and "Idol" airs, "Bang" rung up another victory over "Idol" with a 5.5 rating to 5.2 rating. For Thursday night overall, Fox posted a 4.0/11; CBS, 3.6/10; ABC, a 2.6/7; NBC, 1.7/5; Univision, 1.4/4; and the CW, a 1.0/3. After "Idol," Fox new midseason show "The Firm" seems to be settling into the low 2 rating mark -- a decent effort this time around with a 2.3/6 and 6.3 million viewers. It was down a bit from last week's outing. After "Bang" at 8 p.m., CBS was consistent for the remainder of the night. "Rob" was up a bit to a 3.4/9 in 18-49; "Person Of Interest" equalled its series high with a 3.3/8, and "The Mentalist" remained at a 2.9/8. ABC got its best results from "Grey's Anatomy" at 9 p.m. with a 3.9/10, up three-tenths from the week before, and winning the 9 p.m. hour. "Private Practice" held steady at a 2.3/6. NBC went into rerun mode -- except for "The Office." The veteran 9 p.m. sitcom was at a 2.5/6, its lowest numbers in seven years. At 10 p.m., NBC went with a repeat of an earlier week's episode of "The Voice," hitting a 1.5/4. Both CW shows had gains among its targeted young women audience. "Vampire Diaries" was up 21% among its key women 18-34 viewers to a 1.7 rating/5 share. "The Secret Circle" rose 25% in women 18-34 to a 1.0/3.
Today, though marketers are placing more scrutiny on media costs -- 22% of advertising spent on national TV (about $10.2 billion) was 5% to 20%, above market average price, per SQAD results in NetCosts. That so many advertisers pay so much, shouldn’t come as a surprise. In buying media, marketers tend to focus on CPM as a measure of cost. But CPMs measure quantity, not price. The reality is, advertisers with low CPMs may still be overpaying for inventory purchased. Comparing the inventory purchased with a representative market cost for the exact same inventory is the only real way to determine if fair pricing has been obtained. Just ask any consumer. If advertisers don’t know their price relationship with each vendor, there is a risk of becoming a vendor’s best customer -- a customer that year after year pays above average rates. To get the most for each dollar spent, it’s essential that marketers make pricing a part of their ROI analysis by gaining access to a database that aggregates prices and CPMS. Today, price metrics are available to benchmark purchases, measure relationship values to each vendor, and gain bargaining power to negotiate rate adjustments. No one likes to lose a best customer and it’s often the case that a vendor will agree to a rate adjustment rather than hope another high roller comes along to replace the business. The bottom line is there is an opportunity for marketers to get up to 20% more advertising for the same expenditure. And the right price metrics provide the necessary bargaining power to capture this opportunity.
Is entertainment getting cheaper? Yes, at least for theatrical films. You can blame some over-promised technology falling flat. But the decrease may be temporary. The price of movie tickets has dropped slightly, a rare occurrence with any bit of consumer entertainment. For the final quarter of 2011, movie prices dropped 1.3% to $7.83 per ticket, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. For the entire year, over 2010, they rose a measly 1%, or 4 cents, to $7.93. A year earlier had seen a rise of 5.2%, or 39 cents, to $7.89, thanks in part to the rush of 3D movies. But before the start of 2011, consumers began turning up their noses at 3D movies -- and at those films’ much higher price tag. As a result, less 3D movies hit the market in 2011. Consumers figured that the higher price of 3D movies didn't meet the entertainment value. Might the same be said of 3D TV networks? ESPN and Discovery both have been feeling the pinch. AT&T U-Verse dropped ESPN 3D. And David Laslav, president and chief executive officer of Discovery, has said the adoption rate of Discovery's 3net is less than the company had projected. Research shows that consumers are more interested in TV sets with Internet-connected features than those with 3D technology. So ask yourself another question: What other TV-related entertainment technology -- service, network or device -- is similarly overrated in terms of price/value formula? Surely, there are a bunch of candidates. Remember when ESPN decided to pull back on its own branded mobile phone? Microsoft's Zune, anyone? Executives may still be betting on the promise of new digital and other entertainment stuff. But the backlash over an overabundance of 3D movies means the business over-stepped its bounds in its beliefs about consumers’ entertainment desires. This is bound to happen again.
You’ll be hearing a lot about something called “Battleground” during the next week or two. Don’t dismiss it as the latest big-budget bomb-drop at your local multiplex. Instead, pay close attention to it, because this awesome little production is actually a very solid entertainment property that might occupy a permanent place in media history as the first television series that did not debut on a television network. Of course, that distinction may depend on your definition of the words “television” and “network,” taken separately or together. From where I sit, the Internet and television as I know it have not yet merged into one, even if media companies are anxious for us to believe otherwise. But the day is coming when we’ll be living with the results of one giant media mash-up, whether we like it or not. At that time, “Battleground” will be just another show in that media mash. For now, however, it’s something kind of special, because it is the first scripted entertainment series produced by and for Hulu. It will debut Feb., 14 at 3 a.m. ET at hulu.com/battleground, with a new episode posted every Tuesday morning during the following 12 weeks. “Battleground” certainly isn’t the first ongoing scripted series produced exclusively for an Internet outlet, but I would argue that in many ways it is the most impressive to date. It is so well conceived and constructed that it could readily run on a basic cable network; in fact, at approximately 22 minutes in length, it would fit into a regular half-hour slot with ample room for commercials. If it succeeds, you can expect to see it syndicated here and in international markets at some point. Notably, “Battleground” is the first ongoing Internet series to have had a formal press conference at one of the twice-yearly Television Critics Association tours. Hulu last month joined the roster of other media platforms (including TiVo and Sony’s Crackle) that have begun to infiltrate what was once an event confined exclusively to television networks. Its presentation was as well-executed and effective as those of the dozens of networks that participated in the two-week tour. In addition to a Q&A with “Battleground” executive producer Marc Webb and writer/director JD Walsh and their talented cast, Hulu also presented sessions for its first series, Morgan Spurlock’s reality effort “A Day in the Life” (which debuted last summer and will begin its second season in March) and its third original program, “Up to Speed,” an observational reality series created by filmmaker Richard Linklater about an eccentric tour guide and historian known as “Speed” Levitch. Shot in faux-documentary style, “Battleground” looks and plays very much like “Parks and Recreation” and other television series of that sub-genre, though it is more a gentle dramedy than a straight comedy. Set in Wisconsin, it chronicles the efforts of a group of eager young people who toil behind-the-scenes in the state’s political campaigns. In the first season they’re working for a woefully lagging Senatorial candidate. (If “Battleground” returns for future seasons the team will work for different candidates in each of them.) The cast includes several very appealing unknown actors, as might be expected in a low-budget online production, and one person well-known to Generation Digital, former “Attack of the Show” tech-news contributor Alison Haislip. Internet purists will likely complain that “Battleground” is just another television show. They won’t be completely wrong. It isn’t as inspired as some of the better-known Internet content that has been created completely outside of the traditional structures and restrictions of the Hollywood entertainment community, or the few Web wonders that established Hollywood talent has somehow managed to surprise us with, such as Joss Whedon’s unsurpassed musical masterwork “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-Long Blog.” But -- and this is important -- while it may seem like it belongs there, the very deserving and distinctive “Battleground” likely would never have found a home on television. It is too intimate and unassuming for that. And even if it had landed on a network, it likely would not have been given a long enough period of time for viewers to find it. I believe that with time viewers will find “Battleground” on Hulu and share it online with their friends. I also think people who come to it later in its run will enjoy it even more, because “Battleground” feels like one of those shows that grow on you, and what better way to encourage that growth than by watching multiple episodes in one sitting?