Research
DVRs: Not quite such a threat after all
By Diego Vasquez
Aug 11, 2009 - 1:05:09 AM

According to the most recent estimates from Nielsen, nearly one-third of all television households have a DVR, and the device is far from its saturation point. Still, media people may not need to fear a huge dropoff in commercial viewing due to time-shifted viewing. A new report from RPA in Santa Monica, Calif., finds that viewership for commercials was actually up last season, based on Nielsen’s live-plus-three-days-of-DVR-viewing commercial (C3) ratings. Further, while more households may acquire DVRs, RPA predicts that time-shifted viewing will reach a saturation point because the households most inclined to be heavy users of DVRs to delay viewing have already acquired the devices. Among the report’s other findings: Broadcast sees an increase in viewership with C3 ratings versus live-only viewing, while aggregate cable network viewing sees a decline. RPA’s Cathleen Campe, senior vice president and director of media communications, broadcast and video investment; Shelley Watson, senior vice president and director of entertainment; Lisa Herdman, vice president and director of national programming; Claire Brown, vice president and director of media insights, research and accountability; and David Scardino, entertainment specialist, talk to Media Life about their report.


How much do you expect delayed viewing to grow this year? When will we start to see a saturation point (years, decades)?
 
While we expect the number of DVR households to continue to grow,
Nielsen tells us that the bulk of delayed viewing is occurring in heavy-timeshifting households, most of which we believe probably already have a DVR, and whose habits have already been accounted for in audience measurement.
 
So we expect total delayed viewing to grow more slowly in the coming season.

The saturation point for DVR technology may well take a decade or two (following population trends in establishment of new households), but we think that the saturation point for time-shifted viewing will arrive sooner.
 

What's the biggest lesson media buyers and planners can take from the 2008-'09 season?
 
TV is not dead and still a very significant part of an optimal media mix.

Consumers are watching more TV than ever before and, according to (a Nielsen-funded study by the Council for Research Excellence), traditional platforms still dominate. It is up to skilled media professionals to best tap into the huge, if fragmented, audience that TV in all its forms garners.
 

What's the most important thing for media buyers and planners to know about delayed viewing on television last year?
 
While the cable research is less stable than broadcast, we are encouraged to be moving toward actual commercial viewership reporting.
 
The fact is that C3 viewing, which not only takes into account delayed viewing but also the viewing of commercials (rather than average program minutes), shows an engaged audience and, for broadcast networks, a higher level of viewing when compared to "live."

Consequently, our sub-head, “More Television Consumed - More Commercials Viewed.”
 

Are we seeing delayed viewing rise as much on cable as on broadcast? Why or why not?
 
Delayed viewing is more about specific programming than it is about cable versus broadcast or looking at it at a network level.

People don’t record networks, they record programs. So when you are talking about specific top-rated original programs in cable, delayed viewing is more similar to network.

In aggregate, cable does not show increases in C3 among major adult demos. There are more networks and more channel surfing and churn in cable overall, and that’s why it is not rising as fast in cable for programming outside of the top-rated originals.
 
Some of the reasons include:
 
Multiplicity of cable repeats caused by cable not having the volume of original programming needed to fill all its hours.
 
Greater percentage of non-scripted cable programs when compared to broadcast--by program type, scripted far outstrips non-scripted in terms of adding audience via delayed viewing.
 
Cable programs tend to be more cluttered with non-program content than broadcast.
 

How significant were the variances between C3 viewing and other types of viewing?
 
The variances between the live streams and the C3 streams are all over the place and depend on the specific streams and demos being compared.
 
In our report, for the 2008-2009 season, aggregate primetime broadcast network added about 10 percent more adults 18-49 viewers moving from "Live" to "Live + Same Day," and 20 percent when moving from "Live" to "Live + 7."
 
For aggregate cable, the comparable adults 18-49 number showed additional audience of 3 percent and 6 percent, respectively.
 

Why did Fox see the biggest gains from C3 viewing?
 
First of all, scripted shows drive more delayed viewing and also, the high ratings from “American Idol” increase Fox’s averages.
 
Beyond that, Fox tends to skew younger, and the younger audience shows higher levels of delayed viewing, e.g., for aggregate broadcast, if you do the comparison above on adults 18-34, the percentage increases are 12 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

When you combine that younger audience with scripted dramas such as “House,” “Fringe,” “Dollhouse” and “Bones,” and animated comedy “Family Guy,” and throw in “American Idol,” you get the bigger bump.
 

Fox formatted "Fringe" and "Dollhouse" with shorter commercial pods to discourage ad-skipping. Based on your research, did this succeed? Do you expect to see similar initiatives by the networks in the future?
 
It succeeded from an engagement standpoint (adding 26 percent more adults 18-49 in C3 from Live) but failed from a fiscal standpoint, as the costs of producing extra content far outweighed the gain from sales. Fox has said they are abandoning that specific approach.
 
In terms of adding an obviously engaged audience, it seems that Fox and the other networks should at least attempt to come up with another approach. Time will tell.
 



© 2010 Media Life