TV Viewing on the Internet: some real numbers at last

Source: BARB/comScore/Attentional

Anyone running a serious TV business will want to know precisely how much time people are spending watching traditional TV content on the Internet.

The figures in this chart are, we think, the first accurate figures for the viewing of TV on the Internet in the UK. I will explain why later.

They tell us that the average viewer spends just three minutes and twenty seconds a week watching BBC content on the Internet.

You may be surprised at this low number. The Internet is a world of large numbers. Streams, downloads, requests, hits measured in millions.


So what is going on?

We think the figures in the chart are reasonably accurate because they are based on a large panel of viewers and because they measure durations of viewing, not just hits on sites or pages. That means they can be aligned with traditional TV measurement systems like BARB in the UK.

Does this mean producers can now find out – objectively – how long people spend watching their shows on the Internet?

Not yet, but we are getting there.

Up till now there has been a surprising lack of hard data about Internet video viewing in the UK. Published figures almost invariably relate to the BBC iPlayer. For example, a BBC press release from February this year read: “This month BBC iPlayer has doubled its requests from 61.5 million in January 2009 to 120.3 million in January 2010.” Other than telling us that the iPlayer is doing much better in Jan-2010 than it did in Jan-2009, it does not allow us to gauge the iPlayer’s overall contribution to the viewing of BBC content. How, for example, did 120.3 million iPlayer requests compare with viewing to BBC! in January 2010?

Research by BARB in the UK, using a relatively small sample, estimated that the average person spends about 14 minutes per week watching TV programmes on the Internet via a PC or laptop. Since average adult viewing via standard TV sets in the UK is 27 hours per week, this suggests that only about 1% of TV content viewing takes place online. Naturally, the figures were higher for 15-34s, who spent, on average, 26 minutes watching TV programmes on the Internet. Nevertheless, since they too spend more than 20 hours a week watching TV on standard sets, this still only represents 2% of their TV viewing.

Now comScore, the Internet measurement company, has taken things a step forward. ComScore has large Internet panels in a number of key territories that can provide demographic level information. Where broadcasters have allowed their content to be tagged, comScore can even add title level viewing data.

We may be seeing the beginnings of a systematic attempt to capture viewing on the Internet. What everyone is waiting for, though, is a way of measuring the viewing of particular titles. But unfortunately here in the UK we are not able to touch the real motherlode of title level data yet, though we have been told by comScore that they’re working on it.

Here’s what we can tell you. Let’s start with all Internet video consumption (both streamed and downloaded) via PCs and Laptops, not just the viewing of TV content. That means everything from music videos to user generated content to pornography. Using the comScore figures we can work out that the average person in the UK spent 2 hours and 17 minutes a week watching video content on the Internet in September 2010. (That compares with 26 hours and 13 minutes of watching a TV set. So the total Internet video audience is still quite small relative to TV, only 8.7% the total TV audience.)

YouTube is by far the biggest player here, accounting for 34 minutes of weekly Internet viewing, 25% of the total. The BBC sites, which come next, account for 3 minutes and 20 seconds of weekly Internet viewing, which, as shown in our chart, is just 2.4% of the total. Clearly the bulk of the Internet video content watched in the UK is still a mix of music videos, user-generated content, pornography and, no doubt, pirated stuff. It’s certainly not traditional TV.

The BBC’s 3 minutes and 20 seconds of Internet viewing per week in fact makes only 1% of the 5 hours and 2 minutes a week the average person in the UK spends watching BBC1.

Connected TV’s may one day change everything. But right now what we are watching on the Internet is only – occasionally -- traditional TV.

A year or so ago one couldn’t attend a new media conference without speakers and delegates talking about how we were nearly at the tipping point when traditional television viewing would collapse. The evidence to date suggests something different: it seems that many of the traditional TV broadcasters are simply seeing the Internet as another useful way of distributing their content and tying people in to their brands, just another platform through which content can be distributed for the benefit and convenience of the viewers.

(Thanks to Farid el-Husseini who did the calculations and corrected my draft)

How Did Hollywood Do It?

I have written posts about the way the Hollywood studios countered the recessions before (October 24). 


The chart on your left tells the story in more specific terms. It is an interesting story, one that I hope has lessons for others.

In 2009 the sales of DVD’s by the Hollywood studios collapsed. The collapse was dramatic and quite sudden,  dropping by nearly two thirds between 2007 and 2009.

But, amazingly, their total revenues did not collapse. Revenues dropped, but not by nearly the same mount. Why?

Because the studios raised their international sales, from below $7bn to nearly $9bn, which helped to close the gap left by the collapse of the studio’s DVD revenues.

The front runners in this turnaround were Fox and Sony.

Next week the Westminster Media Forum, on Monday 29^th November in London, is holding a workshop event called  The UK creative industries in the international market. Guest Speaker is David Moody from BBC Worldwide’s Director of Strategy.

At that event, I hope to be able to say more about how and why they did this, and how they achieved this turnaround.

I will also be asking what lessons there might be for the UK and other European countries.

UK Media Policy.What Next?

Those in or near to Government who read this blog have hinted that the department responsible for broadcasting is now ready to move on to thinking about how to grow the UK content industries. After all, we are told– frequently – that one of our national assets is “creativity”. 

That is certainly the mantra of the person reported to be the Government’s economics guru, Richard Florida.

A Conservative is not going to be dirigiste, of course. Anyway, the Florida message is work with what you have got. He pushes three T’s: talent, technology and tolerance and his definition of creative extends to anyone with new ideas.

While the Prime Minister was in China recently, promoting British trade, commentators like the Economist noted we are not the country that mainly has the kinds of traditional exports that China wants to buy right now. Germany sells China $55.8bn worth of goods, against our $9.5bn, which is exceeded by both France and Italy.

While anyone would want to boost traditional trade (a $1.2bn deal for Rolls Royce engines emerged from the trip), we will have to recognise and boost our softer assets, like our universities and private schools, which attract large numbers from India and China.

There is, of course, another way to raise money to pay off its deficit: that is by privatising of Government-owned assets. And many Conservatives would regard privatisation as a way energising an industry and freeing it to raise capital for investment.

So one of my guesses is that the privatisation of BBC Worldwide will shortly go on to the sort of informal agenda that follows when a Government wants to prepare opinion -- rather than move quickly as it did with the recent BBC Licence fee negotiation.

A recent paper by Nigel Hawkins for the Adam Smith Institute suggests that a sale of BBC Worldwide could raise £2.0 bn.

And how would the BBC respond to this? My guess, again only a guess, is that the BBC management would not be strongly opposed. However it would probably push for something intermediate like a part-privatisation.

And what of Channel 4? That’s a trickier issue – and the estimated benefits, perhaps £500m, not so great. I guess that there would be opposition to BSkyB or ITV buying C4. If the Government pushed for privatisation, Chief Executive, David Abraham, free from conventional shareholder pressure, would probably go for the stock market and a sale to private shareholders.

South African TV: In Need of an Adrenalin Rush

I am in Cape Town, South Africa, talking and listening to producers and people who work in the media industry there. (I am taking part in the Entertainment Masterclass Project. It is supported by SETA, the South African Sector Training Authority).

South Africa seems, on the face of it, to have heaps of potential, a natural hub for pan-African production. After all, it is the most advanced economy in Africa.

But then again, it has some familiar problems. A media industry dominated by a public broadcaster. A deficit of other players ready to commission or invest in new content. Old fashioned terms of trade under which producers get fees but zero rights in their content.

The key to a successful creative industry is innovation. But successful innovation needs development time, and development time is risky. So there need to be good incentives.

At least the problem is recognised. A 2008 report commissioned by SABC, the public broadcaster, from a local law firm  reaches these conclusions about the way Intellectual Property is handled here.

“Problems with the current commissioning environment


1. economic value and financial benefits attaching to IP are unable to be unlocked


2. commissioning and oversight processes not efficient, cost-effective, or user friendly


3. difficult to access outside funding when working with broadcaster


4. creates adversarial relationship between producer and broadcaster


5. other creative talent in independent sector disadvantaged due to IP issues and bad oversight”

SABC’s four channels are by far the main buyers of new content.

Formats seem a natural option for South Africa. I bet there are potential formats for reality or entertainment shows which might resonate with the lives of many Africans, and which could be re-versioned throughout the continent. Formats are not as expensive to develop or make as drama.

Formats are culturally specific. Come Dine with Me is about dinner parties, but they do not do dinner parties everywhere. Successful formats, as one speaker said to me, need to connect with the lives of the people who watch them, need to be distinctive and arouse emotions, to be simple and make people feel good.

In the UK we are fortunate. As a recognised form of Intellectual Property, formats can reap the rewards of success. When a producer pitches an idea, he or she knows that, in most instances, the broadcasters take only limited rights and leave the rest to the producer. The result has been a boom in the licensing of formats which started running with Who Wants to be a Millionaire and went into a sprint in Britain with support from the Independent Terms of Trade. Many British companies today not only licence but also produce their formats' overseas versions.

My guess is that a dry legal report – like the one I have quoted – is probably not going to move things forward. A broadcaster like SABC can talk it down and politicians in a country with a large and dominant public broadcaster are often reluctant to disturb the status quo. SABC broadcasts in many languages and is the voice of nation to its people.

Those who care about this issue are going to need to find a new way of reaching the people that count. They will need to portray in bright lights and strong colours, and in simple language, what the benefits of change might look like. South Africa has a very serious unemployment problem. OK, the media industry is not going to put millions more people to work but it could work uch harder for South Africa's economy. I feel the energy is there. It is waiting to be released.

TV on Laptops or PCs: The Knowledge Gap



Viewing via PC or Laptop: Source BARB

 In the UK our staff are always being asked if we can measure the viewing of content on PC’s and laptops.

The answer is No, or rather Not Yet, at least not in the way conventional TV is measured. (There are some other options which I will mention later).

Traditional audience measurement needs credible, common standards that provide the basis for advertising trading currencies.

Audience measurement companies are very aware of the challenges of digital viewing. In the UK BARB is field-testing a device that will capture TV viewing on laptops.

The chart in this blog tells you about the take-up of viewing to TV content on computers. The test panel of 75 people set up by BARB uses a new meter from TNS/Kantar called the "Virtual Meter". Albeit based on a very small panel, we can see that the use of laptops and PC’s for watching TV is growing fast.

BARB is also trialling a system for monitoring on-demand viewing. This requires much larger data sets than  for conventional “linear” TV. For the system needs to recognize a digital "signature" on every piece of content monitored.

You may ask: if they have the technology, why don’t they use it? But the technology is in fact the least of the problems.

Measurement systems like BARB are based on sampling, on panels of people who represent a population. But statistics based on sampling need adequate samples, otherwise the errors can be very large and the findings very unreliable. (My colleague, Farid el-Husseini, has given examples of small channels in the BARB system where the errors on some audiences can be plus or minus 200%).

Those who actually watch content via PC's or laptops do so, apparently, for nearly two hours a week on average. But across the population, that is, taking account of all the people who do not watch on the Internet, their viewing amounts to only a small proportion of total viewing, between 10 and 20 minutes per week -- whereas the average person watches conventional TV for three or four hours every day.

Panels are expensive to run and expensive to recruit – and if they are not large enough to give a reasonable degree of accuracy for every item viewed they are not much use. The BARB panel covers nearly 6000 UK homes. In a perfect world, BARB would wait till enough of those panel homes were watching TV on laptops or PC’s to give a reliable rating.

Unfortunately, it is still too early to say whether or when Internet viewing to TV content will be reliably covered by systems like BARB or Nielsen in the US.

As for the other options, lots of companies carry heaps of information about the people using their own services because they own the servers on which subscriber viewing is captured. But they have been quite reluctant to publish detailed data or organize it in a way that makes it comparable to BARB statistics.

BSkyB in Britain, for example, uses its server data on household behaviour to create statistics comparable with BARB data but they are not in the public domain. (This kind of data is called “server side”, whereas data gathered from people with devices in their homes is called “client side”.)

Google Analytics, which many companies use to monitor hits on their websites, is a “client side” system because it relies on peoples’ willingness to carry a code that monitors where the hits come from. I expect some the traditional audience measurement companies are concerned that someone like Google may jump in ahead of them.

All this is frustrating for rights owners and producers and advertisers. Though they may be getting accurate information about the hits or downloads of their own content – because that is how they earn their living – they are not learning nearly as much about these new viewers as they would like and they have no way of monitoring competitors.

Naturally, we are very aware of this knowledge gap since our clients keep reminding us it matters.

We may have more to say on this before too long. Please watch this slot.