Dollhouse Ratings Watch!

[Skanky Vamp]

the audience is there

No, the audience is clearly not there.. the fanbase is there, the downloads are there, but those cannot be counted as audience. If the audience, those sitting down watching the show, was there this conversation would be moot.

How much of those downloads are outside of the US? Those are all invalid. If you are paying to advertise during the show, and the bulk of the people that "watch"- regardless if they are the correct age demographic or not- are outside of your marketing base, those numbers do not mean a thing.

That is why no one will ever take into account downloads- only DVRs. (at least until the have a way to profit from downloads) And, as per their site, the Nielsen numbers do include DVRs.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

No, the audience is clearly not there.. the fanbase is there, the downloads are there, but those cannot be counted as audience. If the audience, those sitting down watching the show, was there this conversation would be moot.

The audience are the ones doing the downloading. As I've said several times, the TV-watching habits -- particularly among this demographic -- are changing. People are not going to allow themselves to be trapped in front of the TV at a specific time every week anymore, whether the advertisers like it or not. The download and DVR numbers prove that there is a large pool of people watching the show.

How much of those downloads are outside of the US? Those are all invalid. If you are paying to advertise during the show, and the bulk of the people that "watch"- regardless if they are the correct age demographic or not- are outside of your marketing base, those numbers do not mean a thing.

First, most of the download sites don't allow downloading from outside of the U.S. Most of the eps will show up on separate download sites outside the U.S., but I'm not even taking those into consideration.

Second, the downloads do generate a profit. Streaming downloads (on sites like Hulu) include commercials. Actual file downloads (on places like iTunes) have a download fee. On iTunes an episode of Dollhouse costs $2.99.

That is why no one will ever take into account downloads- only DVRs. (at least until the have a way to profit from downloads) And, as per their site, the Nielsen numbers do include DVRs.

The downloads do generate profit through commercials or fees, as I mentioned. And the next-day Nielsen numbers certainly do not include DVR numbers. Those numbers include all viewings for 7 days after the broadcast. The number you see the day after broadcast will go up by around 30% when DVR numbers are added. Nielsen eventually adds those numbers to its totals, but when you see on Saturday that "last night's episode of Dollhouse had 4.1 million viewers" or whatever, that does not include any DVR totals at all.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The download and DVR numbers prove that there is a large pool of people watching the show.

Yeah, but it doesn`t mean they are the audience. There is a difference between people watching the show the market audience.
DVR does count, download does not.

First, most of the download sites don't allow downloading from outside of the U.S. Most of the eps will show up on separate download sites outside the U.S., but I'm not even taking those into consideration.

But until you can get a geographical breakdown, and breakdown on users there is no market in downloading.

Second, the downloads do generate a profit.

How do the profits of downloading compare to selling bulk commercial time? You are talking a one-time sale versus reoccurring affiliate spots.

And the next-day Nielsen numbers certainly do not include DVR numbers.

I never said they did. But when you look at number for last weeks Dollhouse, as opposed to last night, they do. And those numbers are the only number advertisers are looking at. That`s why regardless of what downloading does, if those numbers do not increase then Dollhouse will not remain.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I assure you downloads do count. And they'll count increasingly more as time goes by.

You're assuming the networks and the advertisers are sitting there with their arms stubbornly folded, saying "Nope. It's still 20 years ago and that's the way it's going to stay. If those 18-to-25-year-olds don't want to watch TV our way, then they can go to hell and take their dollars with them."

Every person who downloads an episode is a person who is watching the TV show, and either watching commercials or paying a fee to do so. This makes money for Fox. If Fox is making money and seeing the potential to make more, they will not cancel the show. Cancellation and renewal decisions are made by networks, not advertisers. Fox's first concern is Fox's profits.

You don't take a show that gets +30% DVR numbers and is a Top 5 download every single week, and just throw it in the trash.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

And they'll count increasingly more as time goes by.

I agree.. but we are not at that time.

You're assuming

No, I am not assuming. I am reading that only 20% of homes have DVR's and those that do in fact DVR a program say the program is "not essential" viewing (as per Nielsen website) and the urgency to watch the program is not there.

Cancellation and renewal decisions are made by networks, not advertisers.

Of course, but advertisers play a large portion. You cannot have dead air, and if the ratings are not there no advertiser will pay for the space. Or, Fox drops the prices so low to get advertisers (which they already do for that time spot) that they make no profit. Fox will ALWAYS make a profit. They make more of a profit by charging for advertisers. And they can only do that by having a show that gets ratings.

I know I beat down the station when I was getting the best rate for our commercial. Both TV and radio, it's all about the market and consumers. Not fictitious numbers that may or may not be in your demographic or even actually watch the show.

You still cannot gauge downloads as a viable source to procure advertising rates. We are not at that point. And until DVR is looked at more than just an afterthought, broadcast ratings is still where the money (and shows) are made or lost.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

No, I am not assuming. I am reading that only 20% of homes have DVR's and those that do in fact DVR a program say the program is "not essential" viewing (as per Nielsen website) and the urgency to watch the program is not there.

The DVR numbers reflect actual viewings of the recorded programs...that's why they take 7 days to calculate. They count people who watch the recorded episode within 7 days of broadcast. The numbers say that Dollhouse viewings increase 30% when those are factored in. Those aren't potential viewings, but real ones. It doesn't matter how many homes have DVR's... just how many people are recording the show and watching it.

If the ratings drop so far that all of the show's advertisers pull out, then downloads alone will not save the show. However, high download numbers plus high DVR numbers mean the show can survive significantly lower night-of-broadcast ratings than it could have even 5 years ago.

I don't think that after the "Firefly" debacle, either Fox or Joss would have bothered with this show, in this timeslot, unless they were thinking outside the box in terms of profit sources. Why pour $30 million into producing a season of a series that's guaranteed to fail right from opening day?

This is a "proof of concept" show.... that's why they put it on in a timeslot that, under the old models, would be suicidal. Fox wants to see if they can make a profit on a show with low-to-mediocre Nielsens, based on new media paradigms (DVR+Download+DVD).

If the show continues to lose half a million viewers every week, then it's all moot. But Fox knows they can't remain successful as a network in this economy by holding desperately on to outdated models.

Of course, Joss himself is looking even further ahead. He wants to do shows that are only made available for download and DVD, like Dr. Horrible (A very successful proof-of-concept experiment in its own right.)

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The DVR numbers reflect actual viewings of the recorded programs..

Right, but as per the Business Weekly report on the DVR shows, "fewer than 3% of commercials are viewed", 97% are (zapped) skipped. How does that compare with broadcast television? I just think at this stage it is too early to weigh DVR's & downloads on the same level as broadcast. It is further evident in the same report which states "advertisers seek to only pay for 'live viewing' exposure"

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ----------

If the ratings drop so far that .. the show's advertisers pull out, then downloads alone will not save the show.

That is all I am saying. Downloads will not save the show if the ratings continue to drop; they need to raise (and not to the point of massive success, just raise) and stabilize.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Right, but as per the Business Weekly report on the DVR shows, "fewer than 3% of commercials are viewed", 97% are (zapped) skipped. How does that compare with broadcast television? I just think at this stage it is too early to weigh DVR's & downloads on the same level as broadcast. It is further evident in the same report which states "advertisers seek to only pay for 'live viewing' exposure"

I wonder if anyone has done a study on whether or not "zapping" commercials is a good or bad thing for the advertiser.

When people watch the actual broadcast, with frequent and lengthy commercial breaks, they very often get up and do other things... or at the very least, turn their attention away from the television. They know they have time to go to the bathroom, get some food, check their messages, whatever.

When you're fast-forwarding through a commercial on the DVR, though, you're still watching it. It goes by quicker and there's no audio, but you're still getting the gist of the message. And you're guaranteed to be watching it -- you have to keep your eye on the TV to know when the show starts up again.

So you're looking at a trade-off:

Broadcast: Maybe 50% of viewers don't watch the commercials at all

DVR: 100% of viewers watch a truncated form of the commercial.

Also, Fox has their "remote-free" policy in place -- which they use on Dollhouse -- to discourage DVR viewers from fast-forwarding through commercials by making the breaks so short (60-90 seconds) that it's not worth the bother. The fact they do this indicates they are proactively trying to maximize and leverage the DVR eyeballs: working with the "new media" audience rather than working around them and losing and alienating them. They did this with "Fringe" too. This is Fox looking ahead to those new paradigms. And I don't think Joss would have wasted his time with this if he and Fox didn't have an understanding to think creatively about leveraging the audience.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

When you're fast-forwarding through a commercial on the DVR,

The DVR I had zapped the commercial. When it was recorded the the commercials were marked and you could zap them.. they would still record but one push of a button and they would be zapped or skipped over. It's not like the VCR where you hold the fast forward. I am not sure the percentage of those that are capable of zapping, but I think the article mentioned zapping and not fast forwarding for a reason. An article from Multi-Channel news states that "just 30% of network’s ads are viewed on a time-shifted basis, if that"

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Advertisers and networks are clearly going to have to do some creative thinking if ad-supported television is going to continue to exist. People don't want to watch commercials, and technology now gives them the option not to. This is going to be an issue with even the highest-rated shows, not just on-the-bubble ones like Dollhouse.

I'm guessing the next step will be "banner ads" that display along the bottom of the TV screen throughout the actual broadcast itself.

 

[Silum]

I think its interesting to note that both TSCC and Dollhouse dropped exactly 14% which does lend credit to the 'outside circumstances' theory. A little anyway.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I'm guessing the next step will be "banner ads" that display along the bottom of the TV screen throughout the actual broadcast itself.

They are already doing that to some degree, but yes, I see it getting worse. It was interesting to read from Linds(with an e)y upon his watching Leverage. He was rather appalled at the amount of screen clutter. It will only get worse.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

They are already doing that to some degree, but yes, I see it getting worse. It was interesting to read from Linds(with an e)y upon his watching Leverage. He was rather appalled at the amount of screen clutter. It will only get worse.

I would almost be willing to accept constant ads at the bottom of the screen if they would make them less intrusive than they are now, and keep them out of the actual viewing area. After coming back from a long commercial break, you then get to watch even more commercials, this time plastered over the lower third of the TV screen while you're trying to watch the show.

You can only aggravate people so much before they decide that your precious piece of brilliant entertainment just isn't worth it.

This is why 90% of the time my TV is on these days, it's playing a DVD.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Product placement already exists, but the best way for the viewer/advertisers to have his cake and eat it would be a Truman Show style programme where there is a little more emphasis on the product placement.

After Echo has just saved the day she walks over to fridge and clearly grabs a refreshing Coke.

I would imagine that this is a venue that will be looked into as a means for the advertisers to pay and what better way really.

I know I would rather have that, than a banner taking my attention away from the screen.

Problem then, though, is it could (potentially) detract from the 'artistic' side of the show.


BUT I agree largely with GrrrRuff (gad zooks!) that we're not quite there with the DVR making much of a difference or downloads.

But then I've been saying that for quite some time.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

After Echo has just saved the day she walks over to fridge and clearly grabs a refreshing Coke.

I know at one time, a few years ago, they were discussing that. In fact going as far as mentioning the brand name in the dialog. I have not followed the story but I know that Hollywood was wanting to charge a set fee whereas, if memory serves, the company doing the advertising wanted it based on views/ratings etc. So basically after X amount of time, depending on what the movie did they would pay a certain amount. I believe it was either Lexus or Jaguar which were in negotiations.. not certain, but pretty sure it was one of those.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I know at one time, a few years ago, they were discussing that. In fact going as far as mentioning the brand name in the dialog. I have not followed the story but I know that Hollywood was wanting to charge a set fee whereas, if memory serves, the company doing the advertising wanted it based on views/ratings etc. So basically after X amount of time, depending on what the movie did they would pay a certain amount. I believe it was either Lexus or Jaguar which were in negotiations.. not certain, but pretty sure it was one of those.

Actually, something occurs to me that would make this even more plausible.

In an hour of TV you have say 42 minutes of show and 18 minutes of ads.

To accomodate the in show advertising, make that show a cool 52 minutes (ten minutes extra not eating into the storyline BUT giving you the Echo drinks a coke within the storyline) and 4 2 minute bursts of adverts to break up the show on TV.

That way you have the best of both worlds and no one is majorly affected.
The advertisers get their screen time and the viewers get the an extra 10 minutes of show time.
As long as its done artistically then everyone is a winner, especially as the companies can save on making the commercial.

 

[Silum]

ah, gotta share my karma around a bit more...anyway

Dollhouse is already 50mins with FOX's new remote free tv program.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

ah, gotta share my karma around a bit more...anyway

Dollhouse is already 50mins with FOX's new remote free tv program.

LOL, ok, 55/60 minutes 😛

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

They are already doing that to some degree, but yes, I see it getting worse. It was interesting to read from Linds(with an e)y upon his watching Leverage. He was rather appalled at the amount of screen clutter. It will only get worse.

That I was. I mean, I'd seen the Family Guy gags and stuff, but seriously. I don't want half my screen covered with "BUY A FRICKIN' HYUNDAI" when I'm trying to get a CK fix... The worst is that most of the ads swooshing about at the bottom did nothing more than tell you what channel you were on and what you were watching. Surely this is all kinds of pointless, no?

But then I'm also looking at this from a screencapping and photoshopping perspective. It annoys me more than it probably would an *ahem* normal person. Maybe we're just spoiled over here with our tiny transparent logos and 3 minute breaks every 15 mins.

I would much rather see something like EB suggests though. Product placement is fine if it's left up to the people making the show to deal with. Take Minority Report, for example. That was nothing but a glorified Lexus advert, and it worked. If these things are written in properly, they're not all that invasive.


But then again, the ad companies don't get to do their "BUY A FRICKIN' HYUNDAI! NOW!!!" thing. I don't think they'd bite.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

My favorite one was when I was watching "Ghost Hunters," and a huge animated ad pops up blocking the screen... and the ad was for "Ghost Hunters."

It's also only a matter of time before we start getting commercial breaks in the middle of movies in the theater.