What's the deal with DVR Numbers

[JaneAusten]

I just read an interesting column on the TV By the Numbers site about DVR viewing. The writer claims contrary to the press by the networks and cable stations that they are important, in terms of revenue, advertisers don't care. So what is the value in counting DVR viewing if it doesn't matter? I guess it does give networks and viewers an idea of how many people are actually watching, which has value.

What was interesting is that the writer is giving far more value to online viewing versus DVR viewing. That's where the writer felt the future was especially since there is going to be some sort of measurement in place in the not too distant future. On sites such as CBS.com, NBC.com, and ABC.com, they can and will be able to control the advertising content.

The writer also didn't give much credence to product placements taking the place or even substantially supplementing ad revenue.

I'm just curious if this has any means or impact to those who are watching via DVR?

It seems the only programming people might continue to watch live are sporting events, awards shows, and shows like American Idol who keeps viewers engaged realtime through the realtime voting process.

So is this the reason why television is moving more toward reality type programming because people will tend to watch that type of programming realtime versus a sitcom, drama, or soap, where you can get caught up anytime. Is there something the rest of these shows could do to entice viewers to watch shows same day?

The problem with DVR viewing is 2 fold. Viewers can bypass the commericials PLUS if you wait 3 to 7 days or more to watch, are those commercials even relevant, such as automobile manuafacturers advertising time sensitive promotions via commericals.

The problem with online viewing could be partially the same. If you delay viewing to a later time, any time sensitive promotions being run are pretty much null and void.

[Sylph]

What I hate... Is... That yes, I'm almost 100% sure online is the future, but I wish nets, journalists, bloggers, everyone! just stopped pimping it already. Everyone is just trying to push it down people's throats: Accept it now because there's no turning baaack!

Online can never replace watching HD TV on your fabulous TV screen. Never.

Online, for me, might really be the death of TV. In terms of my interest.

[JaneAusten]

Yeah I know everyone is pimping it. But that clearly is the future. I suspect if the internet infrastructure today was at a point where it could handle it, you'd see a heck of a lot more online and maybe even more content pushed online.

BUt who's to say with online in the future the quality will suffer. It could actually in the long run turn out to be better. And ondemand whether it's online or not is the wave of the future no question.

Sometimes I feel like a senior citizen(and I am in my early-mid 30's) because I enjoy sitting down in front of a television at times or even prefer seeing movies at a movie theatre to get the full experience. Not to digress, but to this day I could never imagine seeing movies like Raiders of the Lost Arc, Schindlers List, ET, Gone with the Wind, heck even The Godfather on the small screen for the first time. It just doesn't have the same cinematic impact for me. And don't even get me started on watching something on an IPod or IPhone or GP3. I see younger folks gravitating to these devices even over desktop and laptop computers because they are slicker and more economical(in size that is). Not my cup of tea.

[DRW50]

Given that the box office receipts for this past year have been so big, I doubt you're alone in preferring the movie theater.

As for online content, I mostly just prefer to watch shows I won't be able to see on TV. I don't really care about sitting at the computer and watching something I can put on my DVR. Even if I wanted to, I don't bother half the time, because of the bad playback, the buffering, the skipping. A lot of the official websites for networks suck.

And then if they start charging per bandwidth I would be even less likely to watch most of those shows online because I'd be paying twice.

If they ever got to the point where they just phased out TV entirely and wanted people to only watch something online, my guess is I would be watching very few new programs. TV shows these days are not anywhere near as great as the critics might fawn over, and the junk shows, the fun, entertaining ones, are also on the wane. They're all, sitcom, drama, reality, more and more smug, over-edited, and insular.

[JaneAusten]

I'll say I agree with your assessment of television.It's mostly silly inane garbage these days. The days of classic television - long gone.

[DRW50]

A lot of it is also so mean-spirited. I guess they somehow think that's hip or what appeals to the masses. I think that's one of the things which helped kill the sitcom genre, although there are still some of those shows on now (like the Charlie Sheen sitcom).

[Michael]

The thing with "online viewing," to me, is that it's only a matter of time before the internet and TV merge. In a few years' time, we'll have the OnDemand-style accessibility of watching TV on the internet, but we'll be able to run it to our TVs or our iPods or wherever. (It's already possible, obviously, just not easy enough to be the norm.) So DVR, in its current state, is probably a concept that will cease to exist, or at least fold into that hybrid model. You won't really NEED a DVR if programs just "premiere" at a certain time and can then be accessed at any time -- with, I'd presume, built-in ad content that can't be skipped.

[JaneAusten]

It's sad that not only are soaps phasing away, sitcoms sad to say are as dead as they've ever been. Like all programming, they seemed to follow patterns over the years from the message based sitcoms of the 70's like All in the Family, MASH, even Mary Tyler Moore to the more family centric stuff of the 80's like THe Cosby Show and Family Ties to the 90's with the sarcasm and "edginess" of Friends and Seinfeld. I can't even imagine what a new wave of sitcoms would be at this point. I think today Charlie Sheen's show works because he basically plays himself, pokes fun at himself and it has a really decent supporting group of actors and characters that click. I like 30 Rock at times(not all the time) but that seems to follow the same kind of formula the failed Scrubs did, silly, sarcastic, but blessed with a couple of standout actors and creative types that makes the show work.