Content: Adults at Work
Craig Engler, GM and senior vice president of Syfy Digital, provides The truth about TV ratings, online viewing and sci-fi shows, debunking the idea that sci-fi gets shortchanged on the viewer count because a high proportion of its audience is tech savvy and uses alternatives to conventional TV.
In fact, the counting systems are sophisticated, and looks at all kinds of factors, including the crucial “C3 – This is a measure of the commercials watched both live and within three days via DVR playback. It’s the metric under which much of prime-time advertising is bought and sold.”
At present, on-line viewing is not a crucial factor:
Although it feels like everyone in the U.S. is connected to the Internet and watches TV online, only about 2/3 of houses in the U.S. have broadband Internet access. And only 50-70 percent of households that have the Internet watch video online. And of the people who watch video online, most of them are watching short videos, not full TV episodes. . . . So even if you did add online viewing to TV viewing, you’re not going to double or triple your Nielsen rating, you’ll increase it by some percentage, and probably not a huge one.
DVR fast-forwarding-through commercials is much more important in undermining the ad-based revenue model.
For the future, as on-line access grows it will become much more important:
[T]he difference in revenue derived from TV views compared to online views is massive. If you add up all the money you get selling ads in live and DVR viewing and stack that against all the money you bring in through every other kind of viewing method, you’d probably be lucky to get $1 in online revenue for the same number of views that would bring in $10 on TV.
Based on my personal behavior, there is also a death spiral here. As revenues decline, TV stuffs more commercials into an hour, especially near the end, 
turning live viewing into an irritation. Shows are down to 42 minutes, so almost 1/3 of the time is spent on commercials, plus the interruptions destroy all artistic flow. Increasingly, I wait for TV shows I like to appear on-line, because I don’t mind a few 30-or 60-second breaks nearly as much.
So the more people like me defect to the Internet, the more commercials will be added in an effort to make up revenue lost from declining C3, and the more people will defect. And, as noted in a GigaOm article on Why Hulu Didn’t Save Caprica, the tech savvy will defect the quickest. (Since I am not in this category, my growing on-line habit may be a real warning bell.) The problem cannot be solved by being niggardly about putting shows on-line; CBS has this philosophy, and as a result I avoid all its shows for fear I might like one.
My view is that the content industry will have to move to direct-pay-for-content in addition to ad-based models. There is nothing wrong with this – indeed, it is superior, because it allows for price to adjust to the value the viewer places on the product rather than the value an advertiser places on the viewer’s eyeballs. The article provides no numbers on advertising revenues, and these would be useful for anyone wanting to assess the practicality of pay-per-view. If pay models could work at low cost – say, $0.25/view –it seems to me we would be well on the way to solving the problems.
The really good news, though, is this article itself, which is a serious executive discussing his business with his customers/fans and explaining the issues in practical, no-nonsense terms. In turn, in the comments section and in the GigaOm article linking to it, the customers/fans respond in the same spirit, asking questions, providing information on their own habits and ideas, and, in general, acting like partners in the enterprise anxious to help solve a problem, to the mutual benefit of all.
The distance is profound between this dialogue and the drivel that passes for policy discussion from the representatives of the copyleft, who regard anyone creating content or providing connectivity as an enemy who is somehow cheating them by not giving it away, and who regard customers and content creators as adversaries rather than partners, and resist understanding the importance of the market as THE mechanism for reconciling interest.
And while I am casting stones, let’s throw a few at the crony capititalists, who do their best to obfuscate the real issues in the hope of getting Congress to force someone else to subsidize their business models.
Caprica image from GigaOm.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nick R. Brown, thelobbyist.net. thelobbyist.net said: RT @DigiSociety: Content: Adults at Work: http://bit.ly/fmj7dF #tvratings #content #onlinevideo [...]
[...] good news is that the adults seem to be taking over as the stakeholders in the Internet are increasingly aware that this is a joint problem, and not a [...]
[...] good news is that the adults seem to be taking over as the stakeholders in the Internet are increasingly aware that this is a joint problem, and not a [...]
In the traditional model, a network needs to make more from commercials than it pays to a studio to license the show. Since no two shows have the exact same ratings, how much it would cost to move a show from TV to PPV would depend on how much it costs the studio to make the show.
I think the final season of Star Trek Enterprise cost Paramount about $1 million per episode. Battlestar Galactica (for Sci-Fi) was rumored to cost three times that at start-up.
25 cents per view, without ads or any additional funding, would mean Enterprise would have needed at least four million views per episode just to break even, with zero advertising and without figuring in costs to put each episode online and keep it there. And that’s after Paramount accepted huge concessions to UPN to keep it on the air, which turned out not to be enough.
TV shows, regardless of where people watch them, cost more every year they exist. Actors and writers (especially actors) get a pay raise every time they get a new contract. No exceptions. It’s a Hollywood thing. If they don’t get a raise, they walk. If a show needs 4,000,000 paying customers to cover a $1 million budget in the first year, it’ll probably need double that (or more) by year three.
If we’re talking about a big show like NCIS, you might need 10 million paying viewers, or even more.
If you watch every episode in a season, that’s $5.50. That’s a pretty great deal if you ask me, but I guess it depends on how many shows you watch. I’m watching Fringe, House, Law & Order SVU, Stargate Universe, The Daily Show, The Event, and V.
That’s $38.50 when I can already watch five of the seven for free over the air.
Didn’t get all of my comment in there, here’s the rest:
25 cents per episode sounds reasonable, but it’s not compared to what the existing system gives you. It’d have to be significantly less. Perhaps 5 cents per episode, to be competitive with satellite or cable, but then you’d never be able to fund a real show.
For what it’s worth (not much), I think what we’ll settle on is a la carte cable/satellite, eventually. Pick the channels you want but not the shows. If you try to go a la carte at the series level, I think you’d be eliminating the possibility of big budget productions and lowering entertainment value unnecessarily. You might have a lot of great, cheaply produced shows, and shows that don’t start off with outstanding ratings would survive when they can’t today, but then you’d never have a CSI or Lost.
That should be a serious concern, as well. Going PPV with every show would almost certainly result in fewer choices and less creative diversity.
Leave your response!
Twitter Feed
About Us
Digital Society is a digital think tank that believes culture and commerce are inseparable, that the digital economy flourishes when people are free and rights are secure, and that free markets free people.
Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs. We advocate for a pro-culture, pro-commerce digital society through research, analysis and debate on emerging technology issues.
Reply Comments
Transparency and interactivity are trademarks of the Internet era, and we aim to foster them here at Digital Society. It is inevitable that some people will disagree with the technology policy positions we take. We want to have that constructive debate.
The Reply Comments feature gives our critics a chance to respond to our viewpoints and the Digital Society audience convenient access to competing arguments. Any time we directly challenge the views of an individual or a group on this site, the party in question may substantively respond in a guest post.
Please contact executive director Jon Henke by e-mail.
Subscribe
Daily Digest Email
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Viewed