Thursday, September 18, 2014
Engagement vs Exposure: A look at the Box Office and the TV Ratings
Above is a VoiceThread that takes a look at engagement ratings (DAR) vs exposure ratings (Box Office and Nielsen TV Ratings).
When you get a chance, take a listen and contribute to the discussion.
If you sign in to VoiceThread first, you'll be able to comment directly from the embedded video (assuming your browser will allow you to do so).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hope this is the correct place to enter this... : )
ReplyDeleteOh, the good old days. When I started working at NBC in 2001, I heard a lot of grumbling from writers and production folks that ‘the suits’ were killing the essence of what constituted good TV. These newly hatched MBAs were diminishing the creativity with all their talk of numbers, they said. The suits would look at Q ratings and such, maybe how something was trending on HSX, scan Variety and the Hollywood Reporter and then watch how the shows were greeted at the ‘Upfronts’ and where advertising dollars were meted out to determine what shows or pilots would get a green light or be cancelled. That all seems pretty nebulous in comparison to how data driven we are today.
I believe what we’re doing now to track engagement online is pretty stellar but I still think we have a long way to go with film and TV. I’ve looked over Listen First Media’s offerings and I’m not convinced that they have the ‘end all, be all’ solution with measuring DAR versus exposure ratings either. In a posting back in February on their blog, they were trying to equate the buzz around “The Wolf of Wall Street” to future ticket sales and to whether that bump in buzz would see it get more Oscar votes. The film was definitely trending the week preceding the Academy Awards, but the film dipped -28.3% at the box office (according to Box Office Mojo) and won none of the five awards it was nominated for. Buzz in the case of that Leo/Jonah feature maybe meant fans were more engaged but it didn’t translate into a bigger bounty.
Alas, if only every TV show could be on Netflix, how lucky they would be. Netflix has 50 million worldwide streaming customers. Traditional television networks don’t have the data like they do which allows them to make better decisions and keep their customers happy. On a regular network, there is a 65% chance a new show is going to be cancelled. Giving a green light to a pilot is tricky because it’s pretty much all based on intuition. Netflix is fortunate to be an Internet company --with all users governed by an IP address and a login, they get to know their customers’ watching habits really well and make savvy picks in content accordingly (House of Cards, etc.).
Here’s a question, cable boxes are very intuitive and know our viewing habits, right? Comcast owns NBC. Why isn’t that information helping the Peacock network get a leg up when it comes to choosing good programming?
Hi, Susan--
DeleteI wonder if the execs at NBC/Comcast would argue that the info is, in fact, giving them a leg up on good programming as NBC just won its first Annual Ratings crown in a decade. Of course, what constitutes 'good' programming to a network may not necessarily constitute good programming to viewers. Personally, I prefer strong scripted programming, but it's clear that NBC captured the ratings crown by sticking with 'live' and/or 'unscripted' shows. Helped by 18 nights of the Olympics, American Ninja Warrior, America's Got Talent, The Voice, Sunday Night Football, The Emmys, The Golden Globes, The Sound of Music Special, and even the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, NBC captured the crown by broadcasting 'event programming.'
The problem with such an approach is that the potential for back-end profits is so limited. (It's not as if we syndicate old Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parades or Carson Daly counting down to midnight on New Year's Eve). My hunch, and it's just a hunch, is that Comcast will use the ratings victory to produce more scripted programming in the next 3-5 years. For the upcoming season they've invested heavily in comedies like 'Marry Me' and 'A to Z,' and dramas like 'State of Affairs,' 'Bad Judge,' and 'Constantine' (and they spent money on the 'Mysteries of Laura' for reasons that can't be understood my mere mortals).
I think you're right on the money that digital nets like Netflix have an inherent advantage when it comes to relying on viewer trends to develop future programming.
Do you remember the days from not so long ago that no one viewed Netflix as a threat? Blockbuster Video didn't. The broadcast networks didn't. The cable networks didn't.
What a difference a few years can make...
Excellent discussion.
Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Susan!
ReplyDeleteThank you for spurring what I think is a super interesting conversation. I agree that it is an imperative of not only cable providers but smart TV products at large to better employ the metadata they are collecting from each of their customers moment by moment. I've always been impressed by Netflix, not only has their offering always been fairly rich (and now is beyond interesting with their hugely successful original series) but more than content I’ve been impressed by the inherent domino effect setup of program delivery they employ. They have always utilized the ‘recommended for you’ category in an amazing way! I discuss this more in my blog #1 reaction. I imagine that this (similar to google results) will start to react to our behaviors in an even more meaningful way as time passes.
Thanks!
Sammy
So interesting what you both say about Netflix. Reed Hastings, from what I understand, tried to make a deal with Blockbuster back in 2000 where Netflix would run Blockbuster's online business if Blockbuster would promote Netflix in its stores. I guess Reed was laughed out of the board room. Two very different business models. Blockbuster made a lot of its money on late fees, penalizing its customers. Netflix letting users keep DVDs as long as they wanted turned out to be just one of many start decisions they made.
ReplyDelete