Commentary
The Demise of Linear TV Is Greatly Exaggerated
- by Howard Shimmel , Op-Ed Contributor, April 4, 2023
Are we really looking at the end of linear TV? Certainly, the signs don’t seem good if you read headlines about cord-cutting and network and cable ratings declines.
Insider Intelligence reports that in 2022, viewing on digital video platforms was just about on par with TV, with consumers averaging 3 …
3 comments about "The Demise of Linear TV Is Greatly Exaggerated".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Having access to linear programming and watching it are two different things. Having a larger universe of people who have access is inconsequential if nobody is watching.
The market has exponentially moved towards content which should be front and center - not tonnage which is becoming more and more difficult to achieve through traditional means.
Howard, as you know I agree with much of what you are saying.
But I also believe that before we try to get a measurable fix on cross platform audience duplication, reach/frequency, etc. we should ask ourselves exactly what our "audience" measurements are giving us. Sadly, it's not viewing, nor is it opportunity to see as upwards of 40% of the assumed "audience" is not even there, hence it has no opportunity to see a commercial. Worse, this is not a constant factor one might try to correct for using statistical weighting methods. Some kinds of people are much more likely to be absent than others; some kinds of program content are more likely so involve viewers that they are reluctant to leave the room when a break interrupts program content; excess doses of commercials in a break, or excessive repetition of the same message or placement before or within content all have an effect on "audience" , etc. etc.
In short, we seem to be accepting the need for "deduplicating" not human " audiences" but device screens, instead of focusing on what exactly do we mean by "audience". Is what we are using---or planning to use----- for "audience" really of much use? Or should we be all-in on attentiveness---or, if that word is bothersome to some---on eyes-on-screen and dwell time as our basic definition of "audience"?At present we are rolling steadily forward on the assumption that if a commercial appears on a screen for a few seconds that this is a workable ---albeit not perfect ----definition of "audience". I, respectfully, disagree.
Ed: You are unequivocally on-point as usual.
When commentaries like this do not explicitely define reach that is only meaningful in terms of target groups actually exposed (Eyes-On/Ear-On) to the creative message, i.e., actual "viewing", it's an unforgiveable disservice.
In addition, I am guessing that much of Field and Binet's brilliant work used BARB Audience viewing data which is not based on device/screen measures (solely content rendered), to understand value of target audience reach to campaign success. I also guess (perhaps incorrectly?) that datafuelX is focussed on ACR TV data and not on survey data of the actual viewing of real people, much more expensive. ACR data merely provides content rendered counts aka viewable impressions.
The "Attention" movement in our industry has offerred substantial data on the poor relationship between 'viewable impressions' and brand outcomes and how that ROI relationship improves dramatically when based on measures of people that pay attention. Ask Audi Switzerland, Havas Media Group or Dentsu.
Attention metrics also generally show Linear "fit for TV" programming generating much higher attention levels than other formats as well as on other devices. No doubt because linear TV drives higher attentive reach??