The Internet Isn’t Killing TV, It’s Helping It
Both the New York Times and the Globe and Mail had interesting articles yesterday on record ratings for big events like the Olympics and the Superbowl and how the internet is helping drive those ratings. To some this may come as a big surprise.
The Times article rightly pointed out that a few years ago the dominant worry in the TV industry was that the internet would cannibalize TV, or YouTube would kill TV, or the internet would fragment the audiences into tiny little bits etc, etc, etc.
Well it’s not happening.
CTV is getting huge ratings for the Olympics; the Canada-U.S. hockey game was the most watched sports program in Canadian TV history. The Superbowl drew even bigger ratings. It was the most-watched program in U.S. history.
The Times says that “television executives are crediting the Internet, in part, for the revival.” The Globe story said essentially the same thing: the internet isn’t killing TV, it’s helping it.
Social Media Driving the Ratings
“I don’t believe that one is cannibalizing the other,” Alon Marcovici, vice-president of digital media and research for the Olympic consortium said to the Globe. “They’re really hand-in-hand … Television is made better by the ability to get additional content through the other platforms.”
Jon Gibs, a vice president at Nielsen, the ratings company, added: “Increased usage of social media is definitely driving the ratings.”
Both the Times and the Globe story, used similar examples to illustrate the point, people in different cities, thousands of kilometers apart, using social networks to come together to share the experience of a television broadcast.
Of course all of this is perfectly natural. People want to share in what they’re experiencing. Twenty years ago people would get together to watch Friends in college dorms, now they do that on Facebook or Twitter.
Alan Wurtzel, the head of research for NBC Universal, told the Times, this effect is “important for all big event programming, and also, honestly, for all of television going forward.”
It’s About Community
The effect partly explains why some people, myself included, have been thinking recently about building communities around media, as opposed to being primarily focused on distribution channels and platforms.
Community is the most important plank of an online presence. The distribution channel is the vehicle, the means of consumption, the plate for the meal, the community is the meat, it is the experience. And it drives what advertisers are increasingly attracted to: engagement.
But some people argue that this is crazy because the online communities are so small compared to TV. To that I would say ‘yes, but no.’ That’s because online communities exert what the military calls force multipliers. They punch above their weight. Let me explain.
According to a general rule of thumb TV audiences break down according to the 90 – 10 – 1 rule. Ninety per cent of the audience is watching passively on TV, 10 per cent watches online, while 1 per cent actively engages.
That 1 per cent is a disproportionately powerful minority. Here’s why.
Dual Screeners
The Nielsen Company found “that one in seven people who were watching the Super Bowl and the Olympics opening ceremony were surfing the Web at the same time.”
These are known as dual screeners. They’re on their iPhone while they watch TV – hence dual screens. These people can exert a powerful marketing function. If they’re chatting about what they’re watching on TV on social networks, not only are they chatting with a few other friends who are also watching, but are essentially spreading word-of-mouth marketing to all of their friends, hence they are force multipliers.
CNN used this idea to great effect when they collaborated with Facebook for the Obama inauguration, and smashed their video streaming record, more than doubling their previous high.
That’s why shows like Lost, Heroes and even the Olympics on NBC have spent so much effort on their online strategy. It’s also why talk-show hosts like Stephen Colbert, Conan, Jimmy Fallon and dare I say Rick Sanchez, spend so much time interacting with their online communities. They know that the community is where it’s at. It’s their leading edge, their most engaged fans, their Colbert army.
I recently interviewed Don Tapscott, who told me about a meeting he had with some CBC people. Tapscott says he was being told about the CBC becoming a content company to which he replied that this was old thinking, that community is where it’s at now. I have to say, I agree with him.
When a community is engaged they’ll champion the content, they’ll tell their friends, they’ll write blog posts about the show, they’ll become brand ambassadors, in effect, a marketing army of the show. And just as important, they’ll coalesce around the brand online, driving engagement and loyalty.
Take, for instance, what one Jimmy Fallon’s Twitter followers wrote as Fallon prepared to host ‘Late Night’ last year:
I kind of want him to do well, and I kind of want to protect him from those who would tear him down… He seems kind of cool. You want to like him.
That sentiment is called ‘investment.’ Fallon created a community around his show that was/is invested in it, and therefor wants it to succeed. As NBC learned in the Conan debacle – an invested community can be a powerful force for better or for worse.
So where does this leave us? I think the CBC could spend more effort on our community, we have half a million people signed up in the member centre, but they can’t do much other than comment on the site. There are very few shows that have real community area online, and our social media efforts, whether it be on Facebook or Twitter, are general geared towards promotion instead of conversation. In short, with a few exceptions, we haven’t spent the same time and attention to community building that some of the American broadcasters have, and I fear it’s a missed opportunity to create a community that’s invested in the CBC brand.
What do you guys think? Can you think CBC shows that are leading the way? Are other broadcaster doing stuff that we could learn from? Leave a comment with your thoughts.
|
Email This Post |
| The Media Landscape |
Ok, but I think that the idea of the Internet “killing” television has always been sort of misunderstood. The Internet was never going to kill television, what it’s going to do is eat television – absorb it.
According to NewTeeVee 25% of the televisions bought in January are connected to the internet – either directly or through some third party device.
What that means is that more and more people are combining the two, so they can tweet on their television or they can watch Lost on their television. It also means that a growing number of people are moving outside the realm of cable, satellite, broadcast and the CRTC – watching what they want, whenever they want, from wherever they want without commercials and without can-con rules.
I sent a note to the CRTC recently and told them that when it comes to “New Media” they are still asking the wrong questions.
It’s not about tv vs. the internet, and it’s not about whether twitter is helpful or harmful – it’s about substantial renovations in the way that people think about media generally, consumers and producers alike but especially producers as most consumers don’t “think about media” at all – they just do what works best for them at the moment.
was there any reference to the new measuring methodology that is resulting in these “most watched ever” numbers?
Paul, what might be considered really old is CBC meeting with Don Tapscott, who similarly met with CBC over ten years ago. He charges even more than Todd does for such ‘meetings’. Plus, if you are going to reference Nielsen, please spell it correctly.
buzz, it’s a factor in Canada for sure. However they’ve been using the PPM in the US for quite a bit longer, and there are still getting record audiences this year. Some argue that the recession may be a factor in that as well.
Barry, duly noted, and corrected.
I am not sure if the CBC top executives, the same people who decide to hire a company to sue people that love CBC will get any free suggestions left here.
Of course, the same suggestions when packaged and wrapped around in a $50,000 management consultant invoice will be much more instructive to the same top execs.
P.S. I am not kidding about the fees. It is true paid advice is much more valued than “free” advice. So no free advice from me here.
Paul, the PPM is presently not used to measure TV audiences in the U.S., except by a few networks (NBC and CNN) interested in the out-of-home audience.
Barry, Arbitron says the PPM is in 33 markets in the U.S. I don’t know which networks use them, but they’ve been testing the PPM system there for several years in different markets.
Paul, correct, the PPM is in a number of U.S. markets to measure radio, not TV. A few TV nets are piggybacking on the radio system to get a measure of out-of-home TV viewing. If you want to get up to speed on the controversy about the PPM in the U.S.:
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4695&Itemid=2
interesting. I didn’t know that it was primarily for radio. so what that means is that some of the ratings increase Canada is likely from the PPM, but in the U.S. it’s due to the other factors.
Kempton, who’s suing whom and why, and who got hired to do it?