Smart devices dominate PCs in the home

There are now more than half-a-billion devices in US homes that are connected to the web and offer access to apps, according to The NPD Group.

Overall, NPD’s report says the number of connected devices per “US internet household” has grown from 5.3 devices three months ago to 5.7 devices today.

This growth was fueled by increases in the installed base of tablets (nearly 18 million) and smartphones (nearly 9 million).

This doesn’t mean it’s time to close the coffin on the PC, though, as John Buffone, Director/Devices at NPD Connected Intelligence, says PCs are still the most prevalent connected device in US internet households.

“However, when you look at the combined number of smartphones and tablets consumers own, for the first time ever it exceeded the installed base of computers.”

Americans streaming more content from game consoles

Americans are increasingly spending more time streaming video on gaming consoles. According to Nielsen data, 22% of American users’ overall time spent on gaming consoles in 2012 was devoted to watching video via VOD and streaming services.

This is up from 19% in 2011 and 13% in 2010. When broken down by the major consoles, PS3 users spent 24% of their console time in 2012 streaming content (up from 15% in 2011, representing the highest year-over-year growth among the three major consoles).

In comparison, Xbox 360 users spent roughly 13% and Wii owners devoted 32% of their time streaming content, respectively. Nielsen’s report covers US console users ages 13 and above.

Cord Cutters grow to 5 Million

Zero TV homes now account for 5% of all TV homes — around 5 million in 2013. Nielsen says these homes have more than doubled from the 2 million in 2007.

Up to 75% of these homes still have TV sets that no longer receive TV programming via traditional means. Sixty-seven percent of Zero TV homes get their content on other devices such as a computer, smartphone or tablet — 37% on computer; 16% on TV Internet; 8% on smartphones, and 6% on tablets.

These homes tend to be young, with more than half under 35 versus the 32% of these young viewers that Nielsen considers TV homes. Some 25% of Zero TV homes are between 25 and 34. More than 85% are “Non Hispanic” versus the 88% “Non Hispanic” traditional TV homes. Over 80% of Zero TVers have no kids in the home, and 60% do not live alone.

Why have these homes unplugged from traditional TV? Nielsen says 36% have done this because of cost, and 31% because of lack of interest. Only 18% consider signing up with a TV subscription service.

Multi-Screen consumption making TV harder to measure

 Every Tuesday, the Nielsen company publishes a popularity ranking of broadcast television programs that has served as the industry’s report card dating back to when most people had only three networks to choose from.

And every week, that list gets less and less meaningful.

With DVRs, video on demand, game consoles and streaming services, tablets and smartphones, the way people watch televisionis changing and the industry is struggling to keep on top of it all. Even the idea of “watching television” is in flux. Are you “watching TV” when you stream an episode of “Downton Abbey” on a tablet?

Nielsen, which has long had a virtual monopoly on the audience statistics that drive a multi-billion dollar industry, last week took an important step toward accounting for some of the changes. Starting in September, Nielsen will begin measuring viewership through broadband devices like game consoles for the first time. Right now those numbers go uncounted.

“The ratings are a very one-dimensional look at what is happening,” said Alan Wurtzel, top research executive at NBC Universal, “and we now live in a very multi-dimensional world.”

Nielsen’s weekly rankings count people who watch a broadcast TV show live or on their DVRs that same day through midnight on the West Coast. To be sure, this is still how most people watch television. CBS didn’t need anything other than live numbers to know that its new reality show “The Job” was a flop, and canceled it a week ago after two episodes.

Through separate, less publicized rankings, Nielsen can also track how many people see a program on a time-shifted basis. One ranking, which measures live viewership plus those who watch on DVR or video on demand within three days of the original airing, is what the industry uses to set advertising rates. Other rankings measure those who watch within a week, or even within a month.

Those numbers can present a much different picture of a program’s popularity.

During the last week of January, for example, ABC’s “Modern Family” ranked No. 12 for the week with 10.8 million viewers if you count just the people who watched on Wednesday, Jan. 23. But within seven days, 15.9 million people had seen the episode, enough to make it the third most popular show of the week behind two “American Idol” episodes. Fox’s “The Following” finished a modest 15th place initially, but its audience jumped by 45 percent over the next week, enough to lift the show to fourth place.

Meanwhile, almost all of the “60 Minutes” viewing is done live. The CBS newsmagazine dropped from seventh place in the initial rankings to 15th after a week.

The time-shifted viewing can change a network’s perception of a show. NBC would have likely canceled “The Office” years ago without this additional audience. “The idea of how many people are watching a program and caring about the show becomes increasingly important, and it is not reflected in the Tuesday report,” Wurtzel said.

In a world where people demand information faster and faster, television executives are no different. They want ratings NOW. The problem is, all of the changes in content consumption demand patience. Nielsen’s report on how many people watch a show within seven days isn’t released until three weeks after a show first airs.

“We have to basically train the entire industry to no longer look at the fastest information, which is preliminary and not necessarily reflective of what the reality is,” Poltrack said.

Nielsen says it regularly discusses how it releases ratings with all of its clients and there’s been no consensus on change. Most people watch their favorite shows as quickly as they can, said Pat McDonough, Nielsen senior vice president of insights and analysis.

Each week the average American spends 32 hours and 15 minutes watching live television, according to a Nielsen study issued last month. More than 12 hours is spent either watching time-shifted TV or DVDs, playing on game consoles, surfing the Internet or watching video on computer or mobile devices, the study said.

“The one thing most people don’t think about is a lot of the additional viewing is rolling out slowly over time and right now, live plus same day viewing is the best way to measure,” she said. “It may not be that way five years from now.”

Networks dispute the notion that things are changing slowly, although they are happy that Nielsen will soon be able to estimate how much television is being watched on broadband. There’s a limit to the information, though: Nielsen can’t yet tell specifically what programs people are watching this way.

Later this year, Nielsen hopes to roll out a pilot program to identify what people are watching on iPads. It’s unclear when this technology will be available for other tablet brands or for smartphones.

The company measures some online video streaming and includes it within its time-shifted reports. However, this picture is partial, too. Nielsen can measure streamed programs only if they have the same commercials shown on TV, and not every website does this.

Netflix’s release of an entire 13-episode season of the well-reviewed series “House of Cards” on Feb. 1 was a television landmark, evidence that a lot more “television” content is coming from non-traditional sources. Nielsen has no idea how many people have seen “House of Cards,” though. Netflix knows. But it won’t tell.

People are increasingly spending time catching up on series they’ve caught on to midstream, the phenomenon known as binge viewing. No one really knows who is spending an evening watching three episodes from the first season of “Homeland” instead of live TV. Nielsen has an oblique way to illustrate that binge viewing is a reality: When AMC’s “The Walking Dead” returned from a hiatus on Feb. 10, the 12.3 million people who watched that night was a series record and evidence that it had attracted new fans during a pause in original episodes.

That episode of “The Walking Dead” was the ninth most-watched television show in prime time that week, but it would have taken some investigation to know that. Nielsen ranks broadcast and cable shows separately even though that distinction means little to a younger generation of viewers. TV is TV.

There’s a similar dynamic with PBS. The public broadcasting system generally doesn’t pay Nielsen to have its programs rated, although it will on special occasions. The 8.2 million people who watched the third-season finale of “Downton Abbey” on Feb. 17 was more than anything seen on ABC, Fox or NBC that night. No one would have known that unless they’d seen a report generated by a PBS press release.

The numbers-crunchers within the industry know all of this.

Nielsen’s Tuesday rankings — and the achievement of getting into the week’s Top Ten — used to mean the world. Now it’s a small part of television’s picture.

DAVID BAUDER

Nielsen redefines the definition of TV

TV is rapidly moving from a 100 million household world to a billion+ screen world. This was officially validated last week when Nielsen decided to change the way it defines television to include non-traditional sources of TV viewing such as Internet-connected devices in its TV ratings sample households, and will make those changes effective with the start of the 2013-14 television season in September. The two most significant implications of those changes are that Nielsen will begin including Internet-only TV households in its sample, and will also start measuring viewing on Internet-connected TVs in its existing sample households.
While Nielsen will also modify its official TV universe estimates as a result of the changes, executives said the impact will only be about six-tenths of a percentage point. The material impact on actual TV ratings and usage levels is expected to be small when the changes are made, but Nielsen executive said they need to make the changes now because the role of Internet-connected TV is likely to grow and become more of a factor in the future.
One of the most interesting aspects of the change is the fact that Nielsen will be including so-called “zero TV profile” households in its samples — homes that don’t receive any traditional TV signals via terrestrial, satellite or cable TV. While they represent a small percentage of total viewing, and typically are either younger (college or post-college) or economically challenged households, their demographics and behaviors will be new to television audience measurement, and could represent valuable insights for the future as more homes become Internet-only connected.
Nielsen has been weighing both sides, but made the decision to redefine television now, because the changes manifesting in the way consumers actually watch television are moving so fast.
A second phase of the redefinition of television that would include viewing on wireless connected devices including smartphones, tablets and even TVs connected to wireless gadgets is planned for the near future, but a firm date has not yet been set.

Multi-screen marketing requires a new marketing approach

Now more than ever, consumers want content at their fingertips and they can obtain it across multiple screen platforms whether it’s by a television, computer, tablet or mobile phone.

The use of non-screen media has declined by 22% since 2008 while television, computer internet and mobile have increased by one hour and twenty minutes during the same time frame.

Consumers have also become more efficient in multitasking since they can retrieve information various ways. About 40% of consumers use their smart phones or tablets while watching TV.

Video advertisers in the past had only one screen to target: the television. However, the rise of computers and mobile devices has boosted video viewing consumption across devices.

Yet, while the TV is no longer the sole video option for consumers, no single alternative has replaced television as the clear top choice for media consumption. According to a new report from ad network YuMe, 49 percent of all media consumption still comes from a television, 16 percent from the internet.

In addition, the report found that the average American owns close to four devices, and total figures show that there are more than 37 million tablets, more than 86 million PCs and close to 287 million TV sets owned in the United States.

So while the television is still the dominant media consumption option for many Americans, the proliferation of internet-enabled devices has cut into TV’s lead. As a result, consumers see video ads more than ever, which can make one spot appearing on only a TV or a computer less effective. YuMe’s report found that TV ads were only recalled about 27 percent of the time. In comparison internet video ads were remembered 43 percent of the time and mobile video ads had a 35 percent recall rate.

While the proliferation of smartphones, tablets and PCs may seem like it would hurt brands, but the key, is to think outside of traditional siloed efforts and focus on a new approach that reaches consumers across screens.

While TV is still the dominant platform for video, we are rapidly moving from a 100m+ household TV market to a billion+ screen based market. Now is the time for marketers to start thinking differently.

How the Harlem Shake became a global phenomenon

The Harlem Shake is a nearly perfect internet meme because it almost perfectly erases its origins. If every imitation of “Gangnam Style” inevitably leads you back to the deceptively subtle, near-perfect original, the Harlem Shake does the opposite. Every imitation leads you to another imitation, the lower its fidelity the better.

The videos themselves are quite literally viral. A YouTube search for “Harlem Shake” turns up 60,000, with 45,000 uploaded within the last week. One person starts out with symptoms — dancing, a motorcycle helmet, etc. — and within moments, someone else is infected. A few minutes after that, everyone who saw the video has the same idea, and the meme spreads further, a domino effect of cascading bass drops. Like the punchline of a joke, the archetypes propping up a folktale, or even its decades-old namesake dance, the Harlem Shake circulates without an author, needing no authority but its own deliberately stupid sense of fun.

THE HARLEM SHAKE CIRCULATES WITHOUT AN AUTHOR, NEEDING NO AUTHORITY BUT ITS OWN DELIBERATELY STUPID SENSE OF FUN

Of course, this is a lie. Nothing moves without a mover, there are no chickens without eggs. Likewise, there is no breakthrough meme that doesn’t get its velocity from something that’s making it go. And so it is here: a nine-month old, three-minute song called “Harlem Shake,” by a nearly-unknown artist named Baauer, whose freshly-scattered thirty-second fragments of awkward dancing have peppered the video memescape since video blogger / comedian Filthy Frank established the template in a 34-second February 2nd video called “Do the Harlem Shake” that’s already gathered 10 million YouTube views.

It’s Filthy Frank and his dancing posse that everyone’s been imitating and on February 14th, “Harlem Shake” first broke through to number one on iTunes’ best seller list. At the time of this writing, the iTunes charts put “Harlem Shake” at number one overall, in the US, Australia, Belgium, Canada, and Luxembourg, and in the top five in most of the rest of Europe. It’s also crossing over from digital: “Harlem Shake” debuted at number 3 on the BBC’s radio charts on February 17th. In an interview with Billboard, a representative of Baauer’s label, Diplo’s Mad Decent records, describes the song as “the biggest thing we’ve released on Mad Decent as a label, and it’s happened within six days.” Baauer also sold out a February 15th show at New York’s Webster Hall, based almost entirely on the song’s popularity.

Even all those YouTube views, scattered across the dozens or hundreds of fan-made videos, add up. Baauer and Mad Decent have generally been happy to let a hundred flowers bloom, permitting over 4,000 videos to use an excerpt of the song but quietly adding each of them to YouTube’s Content ID database, asserting copyright over the fan videos and claiming a healthy chunk of the ad revenue for each of them. All this happens more or less automatically through Mad Decent’s partner INDmusic, There’s no pressing need to herd fans to a Facebook page or rig the YouTube search to drive “Harlem Shake” queries to an “original”: all of the videos can make the artist and his label a little bit of money. Hence the proliferation of the “Harlem Shake.”

After all, these Harlem Shake videos are just the last link in a chain of gently borrowed content. Before Filthy Frank, it was just a song, and not a terribly lucrative one. Before that, it was just a sample, a young Jayson Musson saying, “do the Harlem Shake” on 2001’s “Miller Time,” a track an even-younger Baauer probably mixed as a Philly-area DJ. Before that, the Shake was just a dance of uncertain provenance, something anyone could reference. But each step meant borrowing from something that already existed. Nobody involved was ever terribly keen on asking for permission. Why would they be? For the most part, neither the borrowers or the lenders even noticed what was happening.

But that open spirit has a limit, and embracing most of the song’s copies doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all. When hip-hop artist and Harlem native Azealia Banks tried to upload her own remix of the track, Baauer had SoundCloud take it down. When she asked why, his response was simple enough: “It’s not your song.”

As long as it’s Baauer’s song, he’ll decide who can remix, and who else can appear on it. There’s real money and real control at stake here. This means the Shake gets to be open culture and it gets to be big business. But for most people the business, just like the original dance, just fades away.

The Verge

New Report highlights online video growth

FreeWheel has released a new report that highlights video viewership trends in 2012, based on aggregated data from the company’s entertainment clients, including FOX, ESPN, VEVO, and AOL, among others. The company says its findings are derived from more than 13.5 billion video ad views. Among the major findings:

Web video ads are becoming more like TV spots: In 2012, the standard 30-second TV spot became the most used format on the web (42% of all digital video ads). This is at the expense of 15-second spots, which now account for 34% of video ads.

Ad volume continues to grow: Q4 video ad volume rose 47% year-over-year, fueled largely by holiday spending and increased ad loads. In fact, web videos of 20+ minutes now have 9.4 video ads per video view, which FreeWheel says is the most since it began reporting this data in 2010, and up from 6.9 per video view during Q4 2011. Q4 pre-roll volume increased 45% year-over-year and Q4 mid-roll volume jumped up 60%.

Video ad completion rates are at an all-time high: 93% for long-form content (20+ minutes); 81% for mid-form content (5-20 minutes); and 68% for short-form content (less than 5 minutes).

Video viewing on non-PC/Macs is growing, and iOS is leading the charge: In Q4 2011, viewing on devices like smartphones, tablets, and gaming consoles accounted for 2% of total video viewing volume. By Q4 2012, that number is up to 12%. More than 1.8 billion video views occurred on these devices in Q4 2012. Apple devices continue to dominate, with iOS devices accounting for 60% of non-PC/Mac video viewing. Android devices represent 32% of such video viewing.

Super Bowl XLVII is the Most Social Super Bowl Ever

Super Bowl XLVII is the Most Social TV Telecast Ever

This year’s Super Bowl XLVII has garnered the most social activity in Social TV history. See all the data and details in Trendrr’s infographic below!