There’s been some focus in the media recently on the quickly crashing ratings on television network stations. Even cable is seeing a bit of a decline. A recent article in The New York Times focused on free fall of viewers on the big four networks in just the last four weeks. The focus was on the 18-49 demographic, who don’t seem to be watching TV live as much anymore. Spring ratings have always declined in the past, but this year seems to be greater.
A few days ago, The Wall Street Journal came out with an article on The CW analyzing their new policy to offer their TV programs online the next day after airing on their TV stations. While this has definitely bumped up viewing online, CW live ratings continue to fall. Here’s some of the very interesting points mentioned in this article:
– “Average prime-time audience watching CW shows on regular television is down 14% to 1.8 million, according to Nielsen data.”
– “This shift is partly by the network’s design. Conscious that its target audience of younger people is spending more time online than older viewers, the CW has moved more aggressively than many other networks to put all its shows on the Web, and has been pushing advertisers to buy its ads online and on TV in the same packages.”
– “TV stations that pay tens of millions of dollars per year between them to broadcast the CW network.”
– The number of people watching TV at any given time of the day in the 18-34 age group has declined 3.3% in a year and 6.4% since the 2008-2009 season.
– Since the 2008-2009 season, the number of 18-34 adults using videogame consoles has increased 49%, to 1.2 million. Research shows videogame consoles are often used to watch video.
– Some affiliates have supported the move to put shows online next day, but others aren’t happy. Such a shift is threatening the traditional TV business model that these stations rely on to survive, and the CW needs these viewers as well. TV networks earn income through a small portion of consumers‘ cable bills, and that revenue goes away if people sign up for online services like Netflix instead. It also threatens advertising revenue because of less viewers.
– CW executives say most of their viewers still watch traditional TV. “…they expect the network to remain a broadcast network for the “foreseeable future.” “The bigger danger is not allowing the consumer to watch video where they want to,” said Rick Haskins, the CW’s head of marketing and digital programs. “There’s no point in putting your head in the sand and saying we shouldn’t be encouraging the Internet use. That’s already happening.”
– The CW is earning revenue on deals with Hulu and Netflix (as are their parent companies Warner Brothers and CBS). Recent losses for The CW have gone as high as $100 million a year. The network is using the new revenue to develop new shows and show less reruns.
– The Netflix deal caused one big worry for execs within the CW parent companies. It could train a new generation to live without traditional TV altogether. The big online “payday” was too tempting to pass up though. “Executives also liked the idea of using the CW as a testing ground for “moving audiences back and forth” between the Web and TV, one of the people familiar with the internal talks said.”
So, could it be we as CW viewers are part of a new TV revolution? Can a multiplatform, multiscreen network survive long term? Heck, short term? The CW has always lost money, but the parent companies have been making good money on these shows thanks to international distribution and DVDs. Bruce Rosenblum also said last week at the conference that all of Warner Brothers’ existing two dozen shows were offsetting production deficits thanks to international sales.
(Read Bruce Rosenblum’s comments at the NAB conference here: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052763?cmpid=NLC%7CDailyHeadlines).
Advertising online though doesn’t generate anywhere near the revenue from TV ads and fees paid by affiliates. However, if that’s where the demand is, The CW must cater. Piracy is a very common problem online, and making the shows quickly available with ad supported viewing helps cut down on piracy.
What do you do though if you’re a CW affiliate and know that viewership is going to continue to decline with the new model? Actually, that question applies to all networks, not just The CW. The issue is just impacting CW affiliates harder now. Is the only way local television will survive is through rebroadcast fees with cable, satellite and telco? What if online viewing causes cable and satellite subscriptions to steadily decline? Local stations don’t get any of that online pie. I’m wondering if affiliaties for the larger networks are watching carefully to see how this plays out with The CW.
Everything presented is evidence that a lot of the loss in viewership is because people are watching online. Is that true though? The CW recently signed a TV measurement contract with Rentrak, which uses larger sample data and “is the only fully integrated system of detailed satellite, telco and cable TV viewing data commercially available.” The CW knows how many people are watching shows on their site as well as Hulu and Netflix. The assumption is the new data with Rentrak will more accurately cover the increasing trend of watching on DVR as well, and not just those programs watched on the DVR within a week. That could give the network a whole new arsenal of data that perhaps will give them an edge in selling to advertisers. Either that or they’re determined to prove that Nielsen has been wrong all those years. Or both.
With all these articles, one question I have still hasn’t been addressed though. Are CW programs gaining viewers, or are their viewer habits just merely shifting? That’s the question that has no clear answer yet, and perhaps all this “shifting” is just smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that audiences are indeed declining. Based on the info shared though, it sounds like that The CW is not losing viewers in the droves that the Nielsen live ratings indicate.
In the end television is a business, and you can’t blame Warner Brothers and CBS for trying to cash in on new trends. If it means shows like “Supernatural” and “The Vampire Diaries” continue to be made, more power to them.
So what do you think? Is this revolutionary thinking, the sign of a desperate network, or both?
Here’s the post at TV by the Numbers I was telling you about, for what it’s worth:
As of two weeks ago, SPN originals have averaged 2.5 million viewers in live plus 7. We also now know thanks to the Wall Street Journal that 20% of the total audience for the CW is watching online. Not a twenty percent increase, but 20% of the total audience. And they say it’s doubled what it was last year.
Now of course that’s across the board, meaning some shows will have had larger then 20% of its total audience being online, and some will have less. Without specific show data, all we can do is make educated estimates.
For example, with an average of 2.5 million means that for most of the season that online push means that its actual overall audience would be around 2.9 million.
Considering that back 6 years ago in April the first year of the CW with all viewing options SPN would have got a 3.4. 3.4 and in 6 years a 2.9 in viewers. That really highlights that the numbers we see weekly for SPN are more impacted by the change in how people view shows, than the loss of SPN’s audience.
The CW more than any network is losing higher percentages to both DVR’s and to online viewing (that network 20% is the highest of the broadcast networks) and are more likely to be in adults 18-34.
In fact, you can use info like this for any show to track actual audience erosion year to year. Now all that is good for, is basically tracking the migration of viewers, and to track a show’s general audience.
Doesn’t mean that a show has the same revenue potential that it would have had years ago with higher numbers. Not at all.
Here’s the post at TV by the Numbers I was telling you about, for what it’s worth:
As of two weeks ago, SPN originals have averaged 2.5 million viewers in live plus 7. We also now know thanks to the Wall Street Journal that 20% of the total audience for the CW is watching online. Not a twenty percent increase, but 20% of the total audience. And they say it’s doubled what it was last year.
Now of course that’s across the board, meaning some shows will have had larger then 20% of its total audience being online, and some will have less. Without specific show data, all we can do is make educated estimates.
For example, with an average of 2.5 million means that for most of the season that online push means that its actual overall audience would be around 2.9 million.
Considering that back 6 years ago in April the first year of the CW with all viewing options SPN would have got a 3.4. 3.4 and in 6 years a 2.9 in viewers. That really highlights that the numbers we see weekly for SPN are more impacted by the change in how people view shows, than the loss of SPN’s audience.
The CW more than any network is losing higher percentages to both DVR’s and to online viewing (that network 20% is the highest of the broadcast networks) and are more likely to be in adults 18-34.
In fact, you can use info like this for any show to track actual audience erosion year to year. Now all that is good for, is basically tracking the migration of viewers, and to track a show’s general audience.
Doesn’t mean that a show has the same revenue potential that it would have had years ago with higher numbers. Not at all.
I think it’s both. The CW is on the frontline of the revolution because its ratings are at desperate levels. It got pushed there first by a younger audience.
It’ll be very interesting to see what it can manage to pull off, especially since it only has until 2016 to do it. Then its deal with its affiliates comes to an end, and the affiliates might well just drop it, seeing as they’re not getting a piece of the online pie.
I’m very curious to see how the Rentrak results compare with Nielsen. I was reading recently that even Nielsen admits there is a gap in its sampling. Young adults are under-represented after they leave home and before they set up a stable home of their own. Nielsen wants to rectify this by getting Nielsen boxes into college dorms and places like that. This of course is another problem that impacts the CW more than other networks, and I can understand Rosenblum’s frustration.
Although it doesn’t help with the traditional ratings, it’s still comforting to know that more people are watching Supernatural than it’s getting credit for.
I think with Supernatural ratings aren’t as much of a concern this far in the game anyway. It’s a mature show that’s just building up stock for syndication now. Ratings helps, but once SPN passed 100 episodes, it wasn’t the most important thing.
I worry about shows like Nikita and any other good new shows trying to get started. These are very turbulent times ratings wise and those shows don’t have the luxury of a large catalog to keep them going. I really wonder what those shows do online and in other places. Will the network notice?
You’re right ratings aren’t as much a concern for Supernatural. It has built up a loyal fanbase, and even though it is on Fridays, with the lowest or second lowest lead in, and in its seventh season, it’s still the second highest rated series on the CW. It’s also the only CW show with a syndication deal, so as you say, more seasons add to its syndication stock.
New shows like Nikita didn’t get a chance to develop a loyal following before the bottom fell out of the ratings, and as you say now probably won’t get the chance to reach the magic 88 syndication number.
Soap net has a syndication deal showing One Tree Hill episodes up to Season 6. It shows them at least twice a day on weekdays and up to four times a day on the weekends as part of their breakfast in bed line up along with Beverly Hill 90210, Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars.
I know that OTH just ended its run on The CW. However, OTH has been shown on Soap net for the last couple of years. So, Supernatural is not the only show with a syndication deal.
I think it’s both. The CW is on the frontline of the revolution because its ratings are at desperate levels. It got pushed there first by a younger audience.
It’ll be very interesting to see what it can manage to pull off, especially since it only has until 2016 to do it. Then its deal with its affiliates comes to an end, and the affiliates might well just drop it, seeing as they’re not getting a piece of the online pie.
I’m very curious to see how the Rentrak results compare with Nielsen. I was reading recently that even Nielsen admits there is a gap in its sampling. Young adults are under-represented after they leave home and before they set up a stable home of their own. Nielsen wants to rectify this by getting Nielsen boxes into college dorms and places like that. This of course is another problem that impacts the CW more than other networks, and I can understand Rosenblum’s frustration.
Although it doesn’t help with the traditional ratings, it’s still comforting to know that more people are watching Supernatural than it’s getting credit for.
I think with Supernatural ratings aren’t as much of a concern this far in the game anyway. It’s a mature show that’s just building up stock for syndication now. Ratings helps, but once SPN passed 100 episodes, it wasn’t the most important thing.
I worry about shows like Nikita and any other good new shows trying to get started. These are very turbulent times ratings wise and those shows don’t have the luxury of a large catalog to keep them going. I really wonder what those shows do online and in other places. Will the network notice?
You’re right ratings aren’t as much a concern for Supernatural. It has built up a loyal fanbase, and even though it is on Fridays, with the lowest or second lowest lead in, and in its seventh season, it’s still the second highest rated series on the CW. It’s also the only CW show with a syndication deal, so as you say, more seasons add to its syndication stock.
New shows like Nikita didn’t get a chance to develop a loyal following before the bottom fell out of the ratings, and as you say now probably won’t get the chance to reach the magic 88 syndication number.
Soap net has a syndication deal showing One Tree Hill episodes up to Season 6. It shows them at least twice a day on weekdays and up to four times a day on the weekends as part of their breakfast in bed line up along with Beverly Hill 90210, Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars.
I know that OTH just ended its run on The CW. However, OTH has been shown on Soap net for the last couple of years. So, Supernatural is not the only show with a syndication deal.
Thanks for this article, Alice. It was informative and I do think that the CW has a unique perspective. It has the fanbase that is most likely to watch online so its opportunity is actually a forerunner in this trend. Unfortunately that makes it a victim of the old system, if that is the only gauge for value.
Thanks again, Alice.
-Linda
Thanks! I love articles like this. Networks are so shy about sharing this information and they shouldn’t be. It actually makes us feel better about our shows, proves people are actually watching. I wish PR departments would jump on this.
Thanks for this article, Alice. It was informative and I do think that the CW has a unique perspective. It has the fanbase that is most likely to watch online so its opportunity is actually a forerunner in this trend. Unfortunately that makes it a victim of the old system, if that is the only gauge for value.
Thanks again, Alice.
-Linda
Thanks! I love articles like this. Networks are so shy about sharing this information and they shouldn’t be. It actually makes us feel better about our shows, proves people are actually watching. I wish PR departments would jump on this.
Alice,
I replied to your article on SPN at the WFB, but reading this here was a must, too.
I think viewership is shifting. I know that mine in the last year and a half has. I watch much more online than anything else.
I am not sure how this model would work in the scheme of revenue and ratings. I don’t know how they fix the bugs that hamper a lot of it, but I do know things are shifting all the time.
I saw an article about televisions themselves declining in sales in the 18-34 demo, but I don’t know how true that is, either. Considering a lot of them hook the computers to the TVs (myself included) I don’t know that I buy that. That being said, if that is the case, it might also explain some of the drops. If they don’t feel the need to buy the TV to watch the shows on a cable server or satellite feed and opt for internet only, well that would explain a drop in viewers for networks, too.
This is a fascinating topic and I hope you share what else you find out.
Thanks. I’m sure this will be an ongoing story. I’m curious to see how it will turn out.
Alice,
I replied to your article on SPN at the WFB, but reading this here was a must, too.
I think viewership is shifting. I know that mine in the last year and a half has. I watch much more online than anything else.
I am not sure how this model would work in the scheme of revenue and ratings. I don’t know how they fix the bugs that hamper a lot of it, but I do know things are shifting all the time.
I saw an article about televisions themselves declining in sales in the 18-34 demo, but I don’t know how true that is, either. Considering a lot of them hook the computers to the TVs (myself included) I don’t know that I buy that. That being said, if that is the case, it might also explain some of the drops. If they don’t feel the need to buy the TV to watch the shows on a cable server or satellite feed and opt for internet only, well that would explain a drop in viewers for networks, too.
This is a fascinating topic and I hope you share what else you find out.
Thanks. I’m sure this will be an ongoing story. I’m curious to see how it will turn out.
Great article, Alice. I always find them very interesting. As I stated on the WFB site, I think the Nielsen rating system is becoming very antiquated and not reflecting the true picture. Regardless, ad revenue drives the networks. Lately, I’ve noticed some new ones showing up on Friday that haven’t advertised during Supernatural. I think that’s a really hopeful sign. However, I’m still waiting on Chevy to catch on and finally show an ad during SPN. To me it’s a no brainer!
Great article, Alice. I always find them very interesting. As I stated on the WFB site, I think the Nielsen rating system is becoming very antiquated and not reflecting the true picture. Regardless, ad revenue drives the networks. Lately, I’ve noticed some new ones showing up on Friday that haven’t advertised during Supernatural. I think that’s a really hopeful sign. However, I’m still waiting on Chevy to catch on and finally show an ad during SPN. To me it’s a no brainer!