Millennials: Big On Streaming, But Still Watch Trad TV

by Wayne Friedman , January 9, 2015

LAS VEGAS — A breakdown of younger TV-media consumer behavior shows some differences when it comes to streaming and time-shifted programming.

A new study from Consumer Electronics Association and NATPE, conducted by E-Poll Market Research, shows Gen Xers — those consumers older than millennials — tend to be the heaviest users of their time-shifted TV when it comes to video-on-demand usage: 76% use their VOD service once a week or more often, similar to their subscription video on demand usage.

Millennials — those age 13-34 — are among the largest group when it comes to streaming, and are significantly more likely to consume full-length TV programs from a streaming source: 84% have streamed in the past six months; 54% have seen live TV programming at its original air time; and 33% have viewed recorded content from a DVR.

Still, millennials haven’t given up TV entirely. While 90% of viewers say they watch TV programming on a television set, millennials are at a 85% number. But in terms of preference, only 55% of millennials say a television set is the preferred screen.

Overall, Rod Perth, president/CEO of NATPE, says more than seven in 10 viewers in broadband homes having streamed full-length TV programs in the past six months.

Research sample sizes, duration of the survey, and other parameters were not disclosed at press time. More study results will be released later this month at the NATPE||Miami conference (Jan. 20-22, 2015).

ces, electronics, millennials, streaming

13 comments about "Millennials: Big On Streaming, But Still Watch Trad TV".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 9, 2015 at 4:27 p.m.
To all concerned and interested,
Kudos to Reporter Wayne Friedman, MediaDailyNews and MediaPost.
A model of full research disclosure needed now more than ever:
"Research sample sizes, duration of the survey, and other parameters were not disclosed at press time."
Kudos for well-balanced story headline given available facts.
No hype here:
"Millennials: Big On Streaming, But Still Watch Trad TV"
Well Done!
Gratefully,
Nicholas P. Schiavone
Reply

Douglas Ferguson from College of Charleston, January 9, 2015 at 6:44 p.m.

Oh my, "have seen" and "have viewed" must rank among the least specific variables ever! It would appear that watching 2 minutes or 2 hours counts exactly the same, which is what the sponsors wanted to convey, i.e., the status quo.

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 9, 2015 at 7:07 p.m.

Mr. Douglas,
While I share your 'academic' skepticism, you are in no position to judge the motives of the study sponsor, the researchers or the reporter.
Change is good. So is the status quo. And what about a mixed state of affairs, that is the likely scenario?
I share your desire for greater "precision" in matters of measurement, but we cannot afford to be "precisely" wrong in our assumptions.
At this point, intelligent questions -- not implied accusations -- would be the greatest wisdom.
Sincerely,
Mr. Schiavone

Fred Pfaff from Fred Pfaff Inc., January 9, 2015 at 7:36 p.m.

The billion-dollar question is what are they streaming? It's no surprise they say TV screens aren't their favorite - they're not portable - but what might be a big surprise (what I suspect) is they are predominantly streaming TV programming.

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 9, 2015 at 10:08 p.m.

Another "Reductio Ad Absurdum!"

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

H. L. Mencken

Fred Pfaff from Fred Pfaff Inc., January 10, 2015 at 10:34 a.m.

What's the right answer?

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 10, 2015 at 1:59 p.m.

The right answer is "What's the right question?"
The reporter''s & editor's quest for a compelling generalization
is not one that readers ought to waste time facilitating.
In the end, we'll only have another useless generalization.
There isn't a single business or programming, problem or decision, that can be solved by the data dumped here.
Pointless. Just pointless.

Leonard Zachary from T___n__, January 12, 2015 at 3:50 p.m.

Retransmission fees double digit growth seems out of place given the trends for audience sizes and preference for SVOD. Time is finite. Sell less for more $$$ is always a great model like linear broadcast TV but at an inflection point unsustainable. Cyclical or secular?

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 12, 2015 at 8:47 p.m.

To some "big ad agency": Just fire Cody & improve productivity & quality 100%! Mr. Cody, if he is really employed outside a prison cell, lacks professionalism and creativity. In the meantime, a supply of Poo-Pourri is one its way to your employee to eliminate the offensive remnants of the real old fart...YOU. Cody, you're more than pathetic. You are a waste of time and space. See if you can expand your vocabulary beyond the four-letter scatological lexicon, l'imbecile. Cheerio!

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics, January 13, 2015 at 8:20 a.m.

Leonard, the reason that retransmission fees are rising is simple. Although TV ratings are increasingly fragmented that doesn't mean that people are watching less TV. They simply spread it around on more channels----that's all. Indeed, their appetite for TV----including a lot of, frankly, not superb shows----seems to be growing, not slackening. The cable operators and satellite distributors who serve 90% of all homes are able to pay higher retransmission fees because the vast majority of their subscribers accept bundled packages, which, of course, are topped by the established programmers---the broadcast networks, the stations ( mostly local news ) and cable. If that weren't the case, you would have the wholesale defections you seem to be hoping for. It ain't happening on anything like the scale that "unbundling" dreamers are claiming.

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 13, 2015 at 3:09 p.m.

Dear Mr. Papazian,
There is nothing like the wisdom and experience of Ed Papazian to place simple and complex matters into clear perspective.
Media research novices and the media professionals who are distracted always benefit from your observations & insights.
I've yet to see a Papazian Commentary that was not worth the time. On behalf of all those MediaPost Readers who appreciate your talent, skill and perseverance, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Sincerely,
Nicholas P. Schiavone,
Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, January 13, 2015 at 4:17 p.m.

Thanks, Nick.

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 13, 2015 at 4:35 p.m.

It's an honor to be read by you. You are most welcome.