Originally posted by Holly: Predictably, the C-3 results (which measured how many people were watching commercials) showed that almost all the DVR viewers fast forward through commercials.
I could understand that during the Super Bowl the commercials were watched heavily, because the commercials get a lot of hype during the big game. But during regular programming I can not imagine this is the case.
Actually, I just read the opposite the other day, that more and more advertisers are finding out that their commercials are increasingly being watched on playback. I'll look for the article and add it here.
I never read that article, but I have a really hard time believing that. I have had a DVR for about 4-5 years now, and I have never watched a commercial for a program I have recorded.
I found the article -- I'll qualify this by saying that this specific article is for SuperBowl ads, which are different than regular show commercials in that generally there's greater interest, but the same holds true, even if to a lesser degree, for commercials elsewhere -- I left the article intact, including the part that a typical commercial suffers a 5% decline in "regular" shows -- to me not a significant loss. Also, any time a commercial is watched more than the SuperBowl itself, I'd say that's a success...
Big kick for late-game Super Bowl ads
Advertisers with fourth-quarter spots scored big
By Kevin Downey Feb 14, 2008
If this year's Super Bowl was a nail-biter for New York Giants fans, if was even more so for the handful of advertisers who ran ads in the fourth quarter. They were betting $2.7 million against history that the game would be close and their ads in those final minutes would be seen by huge numbers of viewers.
They got it right, for sure, when the Giants kept the game close all the way into the fourth quarter and then pulled off a last-minute touchdown against the undefeated New England Patriots to win the game.
Airing on Fox on Feb. 3, it was the most-watched Super Bowl in history--just under 98 million people tuned in--and those final minutes saw even higher viewership; 49 percent of homes were watching the last 22 minutes.
But the payout to advertisers went beyond that. Their ads got even higher veiwership than the three-hour game averaged.
They became among the most-watched commercials in history, surpassing those of all past Super Bowls and even such major TV events as the 1983 "M*A*S*H" finale.
A commercial pod airing in those final minutes generated a 47.9 household rating, delivering huge audiences for advertisers Victoria’s Secret, Amp energy drink and a promotional spot for Fox’s "American Idol."
The Victoria’s Secret commercial was seen by 103.8 million people, ranking No. 1 among all spots, according to Nielsen’s analysis of its ratings. Amp was close behind with 103.6 million people watching.
"Certainly, on average at least, this is among the most-watched programs ever, so these are among the most-watched commercials ever," says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna Global, which released a report on the game that analyzes minute by minute ratings.
But while commercials airing late in the game were the most watched on the Super Bowl, the matchup between the Giants and Patriots delivered big for all advertisers.
Virtually every commercial break generated higher ratings than the few minutes of the game that preceded it, on average 1 percent higher.
For example, the first few minutes of the Super Bowl averaged a 37.4 household rating but a commercial pod with spots from Bud Light and Audi that followed had a 38.6 rating. In third quarter, a commercial pod with Cars.com, Salesgenie.com and Vitamin Water averaged a 43.3 rating, compared to 42.9 for the six minutes of the game that led into it.
"That’s pretty significant and vastly different from what you see in most primetime programs," notes Sternberg. Typically, commercials on primetime shows lose more than 5 percent of a program’s rating.
And as it turns out, most commercials also got a decent bump in viewing in DVR playback, according to Nielsen.
Highest among these was a spot for the Disney movie "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian," which was watched by an additional 4.2 million people in DVR playback the same day of the game.
If this show is so frustrating and predictable, why do millions and millions of people watch it?
Because it used to be really good, and we're hoping it will be again. And in any event, wouldn't the better question be "Why are fewer and fewer people watching it?" Or alternatively, "Why do twice as many people watch American Idol?"
quote:
Why are they CONSTANTLY talking about it.
It only seems that way on the internet. In real life, I have not heard anyone discussing Lost, anywhere, in years.
quote:
Why was there so much hype for the return?
Because networks hype their most expensive shows a lot. Because they're afraid they won't make their money back.
quote:
Given all this, It seems like it must be better than most things on network television???
Given that, how come you're a non-viewer of Lost?
Thing about being better is that you raise people's expectations. Nobody expects brilliance from NCIS. And I guess in a way, that's the brilliance of NCIS. Well played, Belisarius.
quote:
After 3 or 4 years, it seems stupid to have the same complaints about a show.
It doesn't seem terribly bright to be berating people for complaining about a show you don't watch.
Well that sucked for the 8 and 9pm hour. Both were below average for this strike effected Sweeps period.
1st week of sweeps: 8: 41.06 million viewers 9: 48.67 million viewers
2nd week of sweeps: 8: 43.29 million viewers 9: 47.20 million viewers
3rd week (this week) of sweeps: 8: 38.94 million viewers 9: 40.59 million viewers
Now admittedily Fox is down due to the special, but really that is one of the lowest viewer totals for Thursday in god knows how long (for a sweep period).
I think I will check VD results from last year and a comparison to results for the rest that sweeps period, to see if VD does have any noticable effect, or if this is just due to reruns, viewer fatigue on shows, and poorly performing specials.
I caveated my post by saying exactly that -- but finding out that more people watched the commercials than the actual SuperBowl is actually significant. And there's other research on regular DVR playback, but I'm not getting paid for this and I'm tired of having to prove everything I say. I'm not pisher.
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: I dont see how this in ANY way supports your original statement. There are millions of people who watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials. I have NEVER heard anyone say they watch Greys, Housewives, Lost, or any other show "just for the commercials" Nice try, but not even close.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Predictably, the C-3 results (which measured how many people were watching commercials) showed that almost all the DVR viewers fast forward through commercials.
Actually, I just read the opposite the other day, that more and more advertisers are finding out that their commercials are increasingly being watched on playback. I'll look for the article and add it here.
I never read that article, but I have a really hard time believing that. I have had a DVR for about 4-5 years now, and I have never watched a commercial for a program I have recorded.
I found the article -- I'll qualify this by saying that this specific article is for SuperBowl ads, which are different than regular show commercials in that generally there's greater interest, but the same holds true, even if to a lesser degree, for commercials elsewhere -- I left the article intact, including the part that a typical commercial suffers a 5% decline in "regular" shows -- to me not a significant loss. Also, any time a commercial is watched more than the SuperBowl itself, I'd say that's a success...
Big kick for late-game Super Bowl ads
Advertisers with fourth-quarter spots scored big
By Kevin Downey Feb 14, 2008
If this year's Super Bowl was a nail-biter for New York Giants fans, if was even more so for the handful of advertisers who ran ads in the fourth quarter. They were betting $2.7 million against history that the game would be close and their ads in those final minutes would be seen by huge numbers of viewers.
They got it right, for sure, when the Giants kept the game close all the way into the fourth quarter and then pulled off a last-minute touchdown against the undefeated New England Patriots to win the game.
Airing on Fox on Feb. 3, it was the most-watched Super Bowl in history--just under 98 million people tuned in--and those final minutes saw even higher viewership; 49 percent of homes were watching the last 22 minutes.
But the payout to advertisers went beyond that. Their ads got even higher veiwership than the three-hour game averaged.
They became among the most-watched commercials in history, surpassing those of all past Super Bowls and even such major TV events as the 1983 "M*A*S*H" finale.
A commercial pod airing in those final minutes generated a 47.9 household rating, delivering huge audiences for advertisers Victoria’s Secret, Amp energy drink and a promotional spot for Fox’s "American Idol."
The Victoria’s Secret commercial was seen by 103.8 million people, ranking No. 1 among all spots, according to Nielsen’s analysis of its ratings. Amp was close behind with 103.6 million people watching.
"Certainly, on average at least, this is among the most-watched programs ever, so these are among the most-watched commercials ever," says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna Global, which released a report on the game that analyzes minute by minute ratings.
But while commercials airing late in the game were the most watched on the Super Bowl, the matchup between the Giants and Patriots delivered big for all advertisers.
Virtually every commercial break generated higher ratings than the few minutes of the game that preceded it, on average 1 percent higher.
For example, the first few minutes of the Super Bowl averaged a 37.4 household rating but a commercial pod with spots from Bud Light and Audi that followed had a 38.6 rating. In third quarter, a commercial pod with Cars.com, Salesgenie.com and Vitamin Water averaged a 43.3 rating, compared to 42.9 for the six minutes of the game that led into it.
"That’s pretty significant and vastly different from what you see in most primetime programs," notes Sternberg. Typically, commercials on primetime shows lose more than 5 percent of a program’s rating.
And as it turns out, most commercials also got a decent bump in viewing in DVR playback, according to Nielsen.
Highest among these was a spot for the Disney movie "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian," which was watched by an additional 4.2 million people in DVR playback the same day of the game.
Lost's ratings are going down, but its production costs are not. I personally think they could easily conclude the story in ten episodes--from any point. So if the ratings keep dropping, ABC might want to consider shortening the rest of the show's run. They really do not have enough story to fill all those eps.
It downright astonishes me people here can write "Lost's" epitaph when it DELIVERED A 5.8 ADULTS 18-49 RATING LAST NIGHT. Only a half-dozen other shows on TV can make that claim. Anyone would kill for those numbers.
No one is questioning your quoted article, but my comment is that it has ZERO to do with your original quote that you read "somewhere" that more people are watching commercials now through DVR playback than before. My comment is that you are comparing apples to oranges. You should be familiar enough with this website now that if you throw out a comment like "i read somewhere" people are gonna call you on it.
PS - we're all glad you're not pisher. The world can only handle so much of that goodness.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera: I caveated my post by saying exactly that -- but finding out that more people watched the commercials than the actual SuperBowl is actually significant. And there's other research on regular DVR playback, but I'm not getting paid for this and I'm tired of having to prove everything I say. I'm not pisher.
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: I dont see how this in ANY way supports your original statement. There are millions of people who watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials. I have NEVER heard anyone say they watch Greys, Housewives, Lost, or any other show "just for the commercials" Nice try, but not even close.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Predictably, the C-3 results (which measured how many people were watching commercials) showed that almost all the DVR viewers fast forward through commercials.
Actually, I just read the opposite the other day, that more and more advertisers are finding out that their commercials are increasingly being watched on playback. I'll look for the article and add it here.
I never read that article, but I have a really hard time believing that. I have had a DVR for about 4-5 years now, and I have never watched a commercial for a program I have recorded.
I found the article -- I'll qualify this by saying that this specific article is for SuperBowl ads, which are different than regular show commercials in that generally there's greater interest, but the same holds true, even if to a lesser degree, for commercials elsewhere -- I left the article intact, including the part that a typical commercial suffers a 5% decline in "regular" shows -- to me not a significant loss. Also, any time a commercial is watched more than the SuperBowl itself, I'd say that's a success...
Big kick for late-game Super Bowl ads
Advertisers with fourth-quarter spots scored big
By Kevin Downey Feb 14, 2008
If this year's Super Bowl was a nail-biter for New York Giants fans, if was even more so for the handful of advertisers who ran ads in the fourth quarter. They were betting $2.7 million against history that the game would be close and their ads in those final minutes would be seen by huge numbers of viewers.
They got it right, for sure, when the Giants kept the game close all the way into the fourth quarter and then pulled off a last-minute touchdown against the undefeated New England Patriots to win the game.
Airing on Fox on Feb. 3, it was the most-watched Super Bowl in history--just under 98 million people tuned in--and those final minutes saw even higher viewership; 49 percent of homes were watching the last 22 minutes.
But the payout to advertisers went beyond that. Their ads got even higher veiwership than the three-hour game averaged.
They became among the most-watched commercials in history, surpassing those of all past Super Bowls and even such major TV events as the 1983 "M*A*S*H" finale.
A commercial pod airing in those final minutes generated a 47.9 household rating, delivering huge audiences for advertisers Victoria’s Secret, Amp energy drink and a promotional spot for Fox’s "American Idol."
The Victoria’s Secret commercial was seen by 103.8 million people, ranking No. 1 among all spots, according to Nielsen’s analysis of its ratings. Amp was close behind with 103.6 million people watching.
"Certainly, on average at least, this is among the most-watched programs ever, so these are among the most-watched commercials ever," says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna Global, which released a report on the game that analyzes minute by minute ratings.
But while commercials airing late in the game were the most watched on the Super Bowl, the matchup between the Giants and Patriots delivered big for all advertisers.
Virtually every commercial break generated higher ratings than the few minutes of the game that preceded it, on average 1 percent higher.
For example, the first few minutes of the Super Bowl averaged a 37.4 household rating but a commercial pod with spots from Bud Light and Audi that followed had a 38.6 rating. In third quarter, a commercial pod with Cars.com, Salesgenie.com and Vitamin Water averaged a 43.3 rating, compared to 42.9 for the six minutes of the game that led into it.
"That’s pretty significant and vastly different from what you see in most primetime programs," notes Sternberg. Typically, commercials on primetime shows lose more than 5 percent of a program’s rating.
And as it turns out, most commercials also got a decent bump in viewing in DVR playback, according to Nielsen.
Highest among these was a spot for the Disney movie "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian," which was watched by an additional 4.2 million people in DVR playback the same day of the game.
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: Well the show was dipping considerably until they started loading a million dollars into all those suitcases. This stunt though can only be found appealing until someone wins and then the numbers will be dipping back to how it was before.
quote:
Originally posted by A.C.: DEAL OR NO DEAL...I still don't get the appeal of watching people opening suitcases for an hour. IF it were only ONE night of the week maybe I could understand the popularity...but the same thing MULTIPLE times a week being so popular I just don't get. Anyway I hope it doesn't overtake SURVIVOR in the ratings.
This DOND overexposure on NBC is so reminiscent of the demise of Who Wants to be a millionaire on ABC -- I know it's very tempting for NBC to strip it to 3-4 times a week, especially when it seems to be doing so well and nothing else they have right now works, but it's reached saturation level and I agree, after this giveaway deal is over, this Deal will never be the same in the ratings again.
I disagree with you. NBC had had DOND on its regular schedule 2 times per week max since it started its run. Before the strike they did occasionaly have extra shows on, but it was not that often. Since the strike, they have increased the number of extra shows, but with the lack of fresh content due to the strike, who can really blame them?
On the other hand, ABC had Millionaire on its regular schedule for 5 times per week at one time. But I still believe that what killed this show was the constant celebrity editions, where the celebrities did not care, and there were always other celebrities shouting out answers.
DOND had shows 3 times a week since mid December -- sometimes going back to 2, but more often than not it was 3. Millionaire only had 5 times a week when it was launched as a strip for 2 weeks initially. DOND was launched the same way. Like I said, DOND is following a very similar path -- while they haven't had celebrity contestants yet (which I agree is what ultimately killed Millionaire), they've had/will have celebrity "participants" like Donald Trump and Ellen Degeneres. When ABC started suffering, they extended Millionaire from once a week, to twice, then ultimately 3 times a week. DOND is doing exactly the same thing right now.
Since the beginning of January, DOND has been on the regular NBC schedule for Mondays at 9 and Wednesdays at 8. Other than that they have used it on Thursdays at 8 for maybe 3 (or 4) times. But considering the ratings that repeats of Office and Earl were getting I don't think they could be blamed for putting on the extra show. But I believe yesterday was the last time for the Thursday special edition.
Yes, Millionaire was on the ABC regular schedule for 5 nights a week other than when it premiered as a 2 week strip. I believe at one point they had it on Sundays, Monday, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. If I am mistaken here, it is only by 1 night. I am positive they had it at least 4 nights per week regularly.
DOND is not following a similar path.
With the lack of ratings and fresh content for NBC, I can not fault them for airing DOND 2 times regularly, and special editions on occasion. But they do stop airing the show during the summer (which I believe ABC did not do). I believe that the DOND fad will fade with time, not with number of episodes. So NBC is getting the most out of the show while it is hot that they could. Because who knows how long the fad will last?
It downright astonishes me people here can write "Lost's" epitaph when it DELIVERED A 5.8 ADULTS 18-49 RATING LAST NIGHT. Only a half-dozen other shows on TV can make that claim. Anyone would kill for those numbers.
Well first of all, isn't Lost's epitaph ALREADY written?
And if ABC would kill for these ratings (and the massive licensing fees that go with them), how come they were willing to set a date for the show's finale?
And you do realize this is about a continuing trend, right? Of course these are still good ratings. But who knows how much further it's going to drop? When will Lost fanatics figure out that their reactions simply don't mirror those of the viewing audience as a whole? You want it go go on forever, because for you, it's a lifestyle.
For me, it's just a story I want to see satisfactorily concluded.
I can't help that I don't enjoy it as much anymore, and that my drop in enthusiasm just happens, by sheer coincidence I'm sure, to match the drop in the ratings.
It doesn't always happen like that--I really hate reality shows, for example. But I don't actually watch them. Maybe it only works with shows I watch.
Lost's ratings are going down, but its production costs are not. I personally think they could easily conclude the story in ten episodes--from any point. So if the ratings keep dropping, ABC might want to consider shortening the rest of the show's run. They really do not have enough story to fill all those eps.
It downright astonishes me people here can write "Lost's" epitaph when it DELIVERED A 5.8 ADULTS 18-49 RATING LAST NIGHT. Only a half-dozen other shows on TV can make that claim. Anyone would kill for those numbers.
Originally posted by lostinratings: It downright astonishes me people here can write "Lost's" epitaph when it DELIVERED A 5.8 ADULTS 18-49 RATING LAST NIGHT. Only a half-dozen other shows on TV can make that claim. Anyone would kill for those numbers.
Yes, and no one doubts that ABC will squeeze Lost until the end, keeping it on the air as long as possible. For example, it could divide the last season in two, like Sci-Fi is doing for BSG.
But it doesn't do the show and its (non-obsessive) fans any favor. Lost would have been great in three or four seasons, but financial logic beats sound storytelling.
Posts: 577 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
It downright astonishes me people here can write "Lost's" epitaph when it DELIVERED A 5.8 ADULTS 18-49 RATING LAST NIGHT. Only a half-dozen other shows on TV can make that claim. Anyone would kill for those numbers.
Folks, do you think whatsponpop will ever figure out that his obsession with me is just underlining that my opinions matter more on this forum than his ever will, and this pisses him off?
Also, do you think he'll ever learn the difference between 'you're' and 'your'?
quote:
No one is questioning your quoted article, but my comment is that it has ZERO to do with your original quote that you read "somewhere" that more people are watching commercials now through DVR playback than before. My comment is that you are comparing apples to oranges. You should be familiar enough with this website now that if you throw out a comment like "i read somewhere" people are gonna call you on it.
PS - we're all glad your not pisher. The world can only handle so much of that goodness.
quote: Originally posted by Chimera: I caveated my post by saying exactly that -- but finding out that more people watched the commercials than the actual SuperBowl is actually significant. And there's other research on regular DVR playback, but I'm not getting paid for this and I'm tired of having to prove everything I say. I'm not pisher.
This sounds just like the rational ABC used with Millionaire. I doubt after watching the post-Millionaire implosion at ABC, NBC will fall into the same trap. ABC's problem wasnt just airing Millionaire so often. The real problem was that they banked the whole network on it. The took their focus off development. Therefore when Millionaire crashed, there was nothing fresh there to take it's place until their resurgence with Desperate Dancing, and Lost.
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: Well the show was dipping considerably until they started loading a million dollars into all those suitcases. This stunt though can only be found appealing until someone wins and then the numbers will be dipping back to how it was before.
quote:
Originally posted by A.C.: DEAL OR NO DEAL...I still don't get the appeal of watching people opening suitcases for an hour. IF it were only ONE night of the week maybe I could understand the popularity...but the same thing MULTIPLE times a week being so popular I just don't get. Anyway I hope it doesn't overtake SURVIVOR in the ratings.
This DOND overexposure on NBC is so reminiscent of the demise of Who Wants to be a millionaire on ABC -- I know it's very tempting for NBC to strip it to 3-4 times a week, especially when it seems to be doing so well and nothing else they have right now works, but it's reached saturation level and I agree, after this giveaway deal is over, this Deal will never be the same in the ratings again.
I disagree with you. NBC had had DOND on its regular schedule 2 times per week max since it started its run. Before the strike they did occasionaly have extra shows on, but it was not that often. Since the strike, they have increased the number of extra shows, but with the lack of fresh content due to the strike, who can really blame them?
On the other hand, ABC had Millionaire on its regular schedule for 5 times per week at one time. But I still believe that what killed this show was the constant celebrity editions, where the celebrities did not care, and there were always other celebrities shouting out answers.
DOND had shows 3 times a week since mid December -- sometimes going back to 2, but more often than not it was 3. Millionaire only had 5 times a week when it was launched as a strip for 2 weeks initially. DOND was launched the same way. Like I said, DOND is following a very similar path -- while they haven't had celebrity contestants yet (which I agree is what ultimately killed Millionaire), they've had/will have celebrity "participants" like Donald Trump and Ellen Degeneres. When ABC started suffering, they extended Millionaire from once a week, to twice, then ultimately 3 times a week. DOND is doing exactly the same thing right now.
Since the beginning of January, DOND has been on the regular NBC schedule for Mondays at 9 and Wednesdays at 8. Other than that they have used it on Thursdays at 8 for maybe 3 (or 4) times. But considering the ratings that repeats of Office and Earl were getting I don't think they could be blamed for putting on the extra show. But I believe yesterday was the last time for the Thursday special edition.
Yes, Millionaire was on the ABC regular schedule for 5 nights a week other than when it premiered as a 2 week strip. I believe at one point they had it on Sundays, Monday, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. If I am mistaken here, it is only by 1 night. I am positive they had it at least 4 nights per week regularly.
DOND is not following a similar path.
With the lack of ratings and fresh content for NBC, I can not fault them for airing DOND 2 times regularly, and special editions on occasion. But they do stop airing the show during the summer (which I believe ABC did not do). I believe that the DOND fad will fade with time, not with number of episodes. So NBC is getting the most out of the show while it is hot that they could. Because who knows how long the fad will last?
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Holy sh*t! 
