The big threat to
TV that isn't: DVRs
A full 90 percent of television viewing is still live
By Diego Vasquez
Oct 25, 2011
Forty-four percent of all TV households now have DVRs, up from just 8 percent in 2005, but that doesn't mean they're time-shifting all of their viewing. In fact, 90 percent of all television viewing remains live, according to a new study by Leichtman Research Group, a research firm in Durham, N.H., specializing in the adoption and impact of broadband, media and entertainment products and services. While penetration has grown, more than half of all TV households still do not have access to any sort of time-shifting device, and in households that do have it, only about 20 percent of viewing is time-shifted. Penetration of DVRs is growing among low-income households thanks to offers by cable and satellite providers that include free or low-cost DVRs, but even so the saturation point for this new technology remains years away. Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst at Leichtman Research Group, talks to Media Life about misconceptions concerning DVRs, their growth timeline, and how they have impacted traditional TV viewing.
What is the most important thing media buyers and planners can take from your research on DVRs?
I think it all fits in the category of evolution, not revolution.
This is the 10th annual study we've done, and if we turn back the clock 10 years, you can look at the predictions of the dire impact DVRs would have [on TV viewing].
It's about perspective. DVRs haven't grown to 50 million in four years, which some people predicted in 2000. We're up to 44 percent DVR penetration and on demand has increased, but it has evolved over time.
But still the vast majority of viewing is on live TV. DVR usage and on-demand viewing will continue to increase, but so will individual usage. We really have to look at this as steps along the evolutionary process.
What's the greatest misconception about DVR households and why?
Especially within the ad community, everybody talks about themselves--I think the biggest problem is first-person research.
I think one of the biggest misconceptions is people with DVRs or on demand exclusively use that. I think research shows that it's not either-or, it just adds to the experience.
Too many people cite themselves as an example, and that does not reflect the overall base.
Six years ago, just 8 percent of households had DVRs. What has contributed to the big jump in usage over the past few years?
I always cite DVRs as a great example of push versus pull, if we look at consumer demand versus provider-side push. The driving force of DVR--it wasn't about overwhelming demand, it never was. In fact, TiVo as a standalone product never reached 2 percent.
What has caused the increase is provider-side push, the push from satellite, cable and telephone video providers in including DVRs with their service. It’s a primary example that sometimes growth is not always just about consumer demand.
Are you seeing lower-income households adopting DVRs now as well, or is it mainly limited to higher-income ones? Why?
When you get to 44 percent you're getting more mainstream.
The interesting thing about DVRs is it was never income-based. Interest actually skewed down because that's who watches more television. But it was still higher-income homes because of the move toward HD--the way a lot of companies offered DVRs was that they were coupled with HD [service]. So while demand was not higher among higher-income households, penetration was higher.
But a long answer to the question is it has started penetrating deeper into other income categories.
How long until DVRs reach a saturation point, and what do you think that saturation point will be?
I think we see the penetration slowing down a bit. We saw a jump of an incremental 4 percent over the past year. So I don’t think we've reached a peak, but to a large degree how far it goes depends on the providers. How they package and bundle the price of it into their packages, I think that really helps define how far it will go.
And that makes it hard to predict; it becomes in large part up to the providers, not the consumers.
Why is so much of TV viewing still live despite the wide adoption of DVRs?
I think what people miss is that over half of people do not have this device. So obviously 100 percent of the viewing among that 56 percent (without DVRs) is live. And that's the one thing that's always missed in the equation. So if the other half is 80 percent live, overall you're at about 90 percent.
Do you think that less TV will be watched live over the next few years? Why or why not?
Yes, of course. Inevitably.
From an evolutionary standpoint, little by little, less live TV is being watched and will be watched. But still the vast majority, even in five years, will still be live.
What impact does on-demand and streaming video have on viewership of live TV?
We've been tracking it and seen no decline in self-reported time watching television, and neither has Nielsen.
I think one thing is, while we get caught up in all the opportunities [for viewing] out there, it's not a binary either-or scenario. For people to watch on tablets or smartphones or what have you--while those things have happened, people forget that over time TVs are getting bigger and better as well.
Given a choice, people will still watch on a TV. The reasons why people aren't watching on TV tend to be for reasons of location and convenience.
|
|
|
