But the sales opportunity numbers and the viewer numbers are two different things, and we need to think about them separately.
In the past, there was a single set of numbers that represented both the popularity of a show with viewers, and the available inventory for selling advertising against it. What's clear is that in the 21st century, these numbers are diverging, and so I think our grammar in talking about the popularity of shows needs to move on. A bigger audience figure, regardless of whether it's fully commercially monetised, is still a relevant number. Networks need to look at the difference and work out how they can put ad dollars against those people. Broadcasters need to look at the whole panoply of outlets, to make a final decision about a show's survival: - Live broadcast - Broadcast +4 DVR (+7 in the UK, interestingly) - Network's website performance (cord cutting continues) - iTunes - Hulu - Viewers who watch it outside one of these windows but are still fans And later - DVD/Netflix/Amazon - Syndication - International Nearly all of those earn cash for the show during its lifetime. If networks fail to take those things into account, or perhaps more relevantly, their broadcasting business models don't take them into account, then those models are broken and they need to think again. Because there's no going back from here. People are only going to use DVRs and online catchup services more rather than less. The challenge will be monetising those services in smart ways. So how about a DVR that inserted current ads in older programming? So if I'm watching an episode of The Last Resort from October in December, I get December's ads. In a digital world, your cable company knows who you are to an extent, so if they worked with the networks they could serve targeted premium advertising. In the UK, Sky is due to launch such a system to its satellite subscribers in summer 2013, so it's achievable. Mind you, so is building DVRs that won't let you skip or fastforward ads. I've just spent a weekend catching up on a whole pile of stuff on my DVR. I may have counted for zero revenue in advertising dollars (or pounds over here), but the reality is that this is only going to become more common for viewing. That's why live sports and reality are so valuable. Adam On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:56 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> This entire line of conversation boils down to the core "their business >>> model is broken" issue that no one (in the business) seems interested in >>> solving. It also broaches on the "why should we invest in a new show when >>> there's no guarantee you'll see it through to the end" issue they've gotten >>> a little better at. >>> >>> I agree with Joe. The fact they haven't implemented a method of counting >> their non-traditional audience is, frankly, a serious flaw in their >> methodology. My color TV crack was obviously an imperfect analogy, but it >> does relate inasmuch as networks and studios are aware of other forms of >> viewing, but are clinging to the false hope that the internet is a fad and >> people will flock back to the dying network formula. >> > > My point is only that I don't think it is appropriate to count legal > downloads (presumably paid for a la carte or via subscription) as part of a > program's ratings, which are used to set the price for ads. If I am buying > 30" on "Last Resort" I don't care how many people watch it on Hulu+ (or buy > the blu ray set). I want to know how many people will see my commercial. > But I should care how many people watch it 4 weeks after it airs, if my > commercials are still packaged along with it. > > If you want to argue that ad-supported programming is obsolete, that is > another thing. I am not as convinced as some that we really have come to > that point. Six million people saw the last episode of "Last Resort" on > broadcast television live or within 3 days - how many watched it, or would > have watched it, on the internet? I doubt even a third of that number. The > people on a list like this are much more tech savvy and friendly than most > of the country. > > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
