On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Ron Casalotti <roncasalo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe it is light years better than what we currently have. > Conclusive analysis of statistical samples was great when it was > impossible to register the audience population as a whole, or on a > continual basis. Throw in "sweeps" programming" and the true picture > gets distorted even further. But had this been the end of the > discussion I'd agree that this approach is better -- but not > tremendously so. > > However, we live in an age where video consumption is migrating at > ever increasing rates from the home TV screen to the PC in all its > glorious forms including house-bound desktops and portable laptops, to > the skyrocketing popularity of tablets like the iPad (with literally > hundreds of more choices to come) and the equally burgeoning mobile > access via smartphones. In fact, for the 1st time in 20 yrs the > percentage of television ownership dropped. Blame digital conversion > and new devices (http://ow.ly/4MiFj) . > > As for teenage girls driving social media results? Social media use > continues to grow with adults.56% of Twitter users, for example, are > in the 30-54 year old target demo. There's an old adage in politics > that says people vote with their feet.Working in social media for many > years I often say that online, people vote with their clicks, deciding > where and on what to spend their limited resource of time. It follows > that they would do so on things they find of interest, and that > interest should be included in determining public sentiment and > popularity of any medium -- TV included. > > And so any broadcast medium measurement that includes, in a > significant way, digital viewer ship and just as importantly, digital > public sentiment, is better than one that does not. No, it's not > perfect, but I think we can agree it's a move in the right direction > (and, I'd add, long overdue).
I think that there is a tipping point in platform conversion and we're not there yet. I see anecdotal chatter about people dropping watching TV sets for online viewing, but nobody I know has told me they have done this and the TV industry doesn't seem to be in the panic that the publishing industry is, and I have no problem finding people who can tell me about dropping newspaper and magazine subscriptions. The drop in TV households seems to be more related to rural families not being to afford digital TV sets or not being able to receive over-the-air stations. I'd like to see a survey/study which asks iPad owners how many of them live in houses with TV sets - I'm guessing the number is 100%. HDTV is like a lot of technical innovations, when the technology is new and expensive lots of people say they have no use for it and when it becomes ubiquitous people who have it say they will never go back. The bandwidth cost for online HD is still expensive so people will be sticking with their TVs for a while. The cited age range 30-54 is meaningful, but I'm thinking outside that range. If we take those two groups, those under 30 and those above 54, they inhabit completely different world of media consumption. I wouldn't want to be Nielsen or any other company who has to gather data about media usage in those two worlds and come up with one set of numbers or one conclusion. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
