When it aired on television from 2003 to 2006, "Arrested Development" was a ratings disaster. The beloved Fox comedy's second season averaged out at around 6 million viewers per episode, and it quickly declined from there. Fox, in turn, lowered the episode counts and pit the struggling show against ABC's behemoth, "Monday Night Football," all but killing its chances of success. The series finale barely nabbed 3 million viewers.
But the show maintained a rabid, consistent fanbase who ate up every episode and gobbled up the DVDs, turning the show's stars -- Jason Bateman, Will Arnett and Michael Cera -- into mainstream success stories. These days, creator Mitch Hurwitz and his cast are bombarded in countless interviews with questions about a feature film version of the show, which is reportedly in the works. Five years after it was cancelled, "Arrested Development" remains relevant, and the brand still holds weight.
Perhaps if Fox had figured out how to properly account for its fanbase -- most of which was made up of younger viewers more apt to download or watch the show online or on DVD -- the show would have been met with a different fate. By thinking outside the box, might a show with fans as engaged and enamored with the content as "Arrested Development" have more of a fighting chance?
Steve Levitan, the executive producer of "Modern Family," would certainly argue that point. While attending a panel in Montreal, Levitan told the Hollywood Reporter that the way we measure television audiences has not properly adapted to the times of DVR, online viewership and mobile consumption. It has not begun to truly reflect to how we really interact and engage with our favorite programs.
“If you have a show that caters to a technologically sophisticated audience, or a young audience who watches TV in that newer way, it may hurt you," he said, "compared to a show that caters to an older audience, or an audience that is at a lower class socially-economically, where they tend to watch TV live, as it happens."
In other words: the way studios track TV shows has not kept pace with the way people are watching them. Just because our TVs are turned on doesn't mean we are engaged with them -- or are invested in the content. Yet today, a viewer who stumbles across an episode of "CSI:NY" while he's cooking dinner is given more weight than a viewer who plows through two straight seasons of "Breaking Bad" on DVD.
As the climate of television changes with every passing year, the number of ways a viewer can engage with a show increases, and the networks and their advertisers are struggling to catch up. With new research and a fresh outlook, everyone agrees that we need to change the way we look at television ratings. But can all parties band together for this common cause?
Source: Full article @ Huffington Post
TV Ratings: Are We Looking At Them All Wrong?
19 Aug 2011
Industry News
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!
I'm really enjoying these industry news related articles I have to say.
ReplyDeleteare you talking about FOX? that tv which cancelled Firefly? lol not much to say about it :P
ReplyDeletebut in general, they must think about ratings in a different way, not all is about getting high ratings... :/
in these times, they should look on the internet which shows are the most interesting for people and which have more fans... dvd's are also a good thing to consider, but it's difficult to take into account the dvd's in new shows which maybe are already cancelled when they edited them. But yes, not all is about ratings! :)
One of the very few times I actually agree with The Huffington Post. It is ridiculous that in this day and age they have not graduated, or evolved the Television ratings system. It's like closing your eye and ears, and saying I don't believe in computers, so they aren't there. When will they learn?
ReplyDeleteThe networks who say that they can't get the numbers they want are at fault because they keep paying Nielsen the big bucks to keep handing them the same numbers year after year and don't want to figure out how to translate new metrics into advertising dollars. Nielsen won't have impetus to change its system until it's profit margins are threatened by media members and networks cancelling their subscriptions.
ReplyDeleteexactly.
ReplyDeleteThis pretty much says it all:
ReplyDelete"Yet today, a viewer who stumbles across an episode of "CYS:NY" while he's cooking dinner is given more weight than a viewer who plows through two straight seasons of "Breaking Bad" on DVD."
Also, take into account how many people who are not actually living in the US know certain shows ... and not just the seasons that are currently airing in the country they're living in.
I think one of the best examples is probably Supernatura. I've been a fan of the show ever since it started airing, but never knew just HOW huge their fanbase was until last year. They seem to be winning about every fan-poll. And if they don't happen to be winning, they're at least 3rd. 2nd, mostly. Meaning they have a huge fanbase, one of the biggest online-active fanbase you can probably find for any current TV show (correct me if I'm wrong, though). But their rating ... well, it's a CW show. They never get good rating, at least compared to other networks like FOX or ABC. Which is why I think those ratings don't really say too much about how much a show is liked or not. How big its fanbase is. It rather says something about how many people randomly tune in to the show to watch it while doing some late-night housework or -homework or something similar to that.
But it's the ratings that are very important when it comes to whether a show gets another season or not. I don't think it's too fair. But then again, I wouldn't have any clue about how to solve this problem.
I actually dislike watching TV live. I like to save up episodes so I can watch them in marathons, as opposed to watching them one at a time. I'm also generally to busy during the week for TV, but that doesn't mean I'm not watching anything.
ReplyDeleteFan base is a very hard metric to objectively measure. What are they going to need to do measure the hits on fan site? Or just go by dvd sales figures? Or how are individual episodes to be ranked? That is the main reason Nielsen Has not kept up. Then you have mobile subscribers. How will they be counted? These questions are not very easily answered. Now if you go by vocal fan base Fire Fly would be back in production. However, The people who Love Nathan Fillion in Castle would be objecting losing their star. So how are these metrics going to work?
ReplyDeleteit is true I think and things need to change...what was once a brilliant measure isn't relevant now because of all the technology
ReplyDeleteIf TV networks were actually interested in the fans, I think them being more aware of online fandoms would be a good thing. Sadly, shows are made to sell advertisement space and the rabidness of a show's fandom does not get more people watching the commercials - in theory higher ratings does.
ReplyDeleteUntil networks care about something more than revenue it will always be a ratings game. It is just far easier to measure how many people watch a series and the ads than it is to measure the fans passion.
I think networks should think about that. Find a way to measure the online communities passion, but how? Sponsor links on the online website that can measure what show site linked to the sponsor might help. More individual hits means more ad views which is what they're after in the end. That has flaws too though....
I personally don't see any solution to the width versus depth dilemma as long as advertising rules the networks.
That's a good point. I actually do that too, especially if I feel I have too many shows on my plate. I wonder if there is any way to quantify people who save an episode for later. Sticking a counter in every DVR-recorder seems a little invasive. ;)
ReplyDeleteI wonder what would happen to ratings and sales if people worldwide were allowed to watch any show online once an episode had aired on tv. Otherwise you'll never get a true picture of the fanbase at the time of airing, since a large part of that fanbase may have to resort to watching the show through illegal forms of media.
ReplyDeleteBetween On Demand, DVR numbers, online viewing hits, and DVD sales, there should be an electronic way to measure these things. If you can get a detailed cell phone statement why can't you get a detailed cable/satellite, statement? There is a way to measure these things, it's just not what "They" wanna know right now. Fingers in their ears eyes closed, saying la la la I can't hear you la la la!
ReplyDeleteWell, that's what I meant. I do think there needs to me another way to measure it, but I myself have no clue how this could ever possibly work. The only way I can think of are the ratings. Even if it doesn't seem fair at times.
ReplyDeleteBut there are so many things that would have to be taken into account with all these different kindsa of media available to us now.
I kind of think some people would be surprised by the results ... maybe.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, this wouldn't be good for TV networks in some other countries. Nowadays, a lot more people speak English. The internet and constant possible access to media in this language (and other language, for that matter) resulted in a lot more young people being more comfortable with the language. Even if they won't be too happy to speak it, they sure understand quite a lot of it. So if episodes would be allowed to be viewed by anyone once it aired, meaning the access to this episode would be (even) easier, what would happen to the ratings for the show in the country this person actually lives in?
I'm e.g. from Germany. I started watching Vampire Diaries on German television when it started airing in january 2010. They had a 9 months break after the first 11 episodes. Yes. 9 months. But I knew that - of course - I could watch the missing episodes somewhere online. So that's what I did, especially since I usually rather watch the original episodes anyways. I didn't even finish watching those first 11 episodes on German television.
I know some people who still watch the dubbed versions shown in Germany (Season 2 just started here) because they feel more comfortable with the language but mainly because it seems easier to them.
But what if watching them online gets easier? (And more legal, for that matter)
What will it mean for a show if it doesn't seem to be this popular in other countries anymore? I don't know if the shows would care. Then again, they could probably see where the people are from that are watching the show online.
But I'm thinking about other networks here outside the US.
Not that I'm watching TV. Ever. (Besides Formula 1 *HUGE fan*)
But just in theory ...
Oh, I absolutely agree with your argument. A network in one country is not going to want to loose the revenue it gets from selling the rights to a show to a tv channel in another country. And the synchronization or subtitling can't be done overnight. I was just thinking about it from a theoretical perspective in that there's this huge segment of a shows fanbase that may be hidden because it isn't national.
ReplyDelete"the way studios track TV shows has not kept pace
ReplyDeletewith the way people are watching them. Just because our TVs are turned
on doesn't mean we are engaged with them -- or are invested in the
content."The bottom line is that networks will only keep shows they can find away to profit from. Unfortunately, the old model of ad revenue is still the main way to turn a profit. Internet viewing and time shifted viewing (DVR) doesn't come with an adequate revenue stream, and DVD sales only help if you can keep the show on the air to keep making episodes to churn out more DVDs. How engaged a viewer is in the program means little if it doesn't end with the network filling their pockets with cash.
I imagine that part of this is a privacy issue in the United States.
ReplyDeleteCritically, this article has flaws although it promotes what every fan wants to hear. The simple fact is that TV is a business just like anything else. If no one is buying your product, you get a new product or go under. It doesn't matter how many people look at the product. TV is produced by either subscriptions and/or advertising in the United States, so it is advertising that drives what is shown. The fact is that people who watch shows online or DVR are less likely to watch the commercials. Why in the world would advertisers pay if people aren't seeing their ads? That's a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing goes with a rabid but small fanbase. Unless you have proof that watching that car ad on a small rated show caused a large percentage of fans to buy that car, common sense says show it to a larger audience where you have a greater chance that someone is in the market for a new car. It doesn't matter how many comments I have made about Supernatural on SpoilerTV or how often I Twitter about it. I didn't see the ads that sponsored Supernatural tonight on either site. Therefore, I only count as 1 person and I saw those ads when I watched it live not online.
We all wring our hands about the rating system but the simple truth is that no one has found a better business way to create revenue for those who pay for the show to air. Until people can prove that online viewing is a successful way to get people to buy your product, there is absolutely no incentive to count it. Nothing in this article even pointed to how it could be done.
Furthermore, DVD sales, international rights, merchandising and syndication are only good for those who own the show. Many times TV shows are owned by a different company than the network that airs it. (Best scenario, it is owned by your network and someone else too.) That means that the only way the network makes money is through the advertising it can sell. Again we go back to ads. For those who want Hollywood to stop being driven by advertising, then who would pay to create the shows? Americans don't believe in state-sponsored TV and PBS is struggling as it is. Without advertisers, no shows would be on except HBO and other pay to watch networks. I'd like to see how rabid even Supernatural fans would be if they had to raise enough funds for even half a season of episodes to be created. I was grumbling about the cost to download from iTunes and that's one speck of sand compared to one episode's cost.
Nielson already runs voluntary monitoring of people's behaviour on computers: they have the tech, its just not in play for ratings.
ReplyDeleteThere are the obvious counters though, like hashtag counts and Facebook likes: it'd be a rough start, but at least something.
ReplyDeleteIts an issue that's hitting the fan right now here in New Zealand: effectively we're being used as guinea-pigs to trial a 'crack-down' on P2P: we're somewhere in the top three for illegal downloads. Given that most things take 1-1.5 years to get here (if at all), and we speak English, its not surprising.
ReplyDeleteWhat irritates me the most is that I'd be willing to pay import tax and what have you on top of the actual price of the episode/season, if I could just download it legally. I'm doing everything but jumping up and down screaming "take my money, take my money".
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear about the crack-down. That sucks.
I may be one of the rabid fans unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say makes a lot of sense. And I can't see a way around the ad problem for now either. I mean it when I say that I'd be happy to pay more, like import taxes. But while I'm having a hard time calculating the additional cost of "substitute ad-payments", I'm pretty sure it's more than I can afford.
Why are the ads not part of the online episode today, do you know? Is is that they'd have to break up the file with the episode and insert the ads and squash it all together like a bad youtube vid? I assume that they sort of start and stop the show on tv and run ads in between.