Excerpts from TV Dimensions 2016
From Chapter I. Basics:
“When all ad-free viewing is totaled, including PBS, pay cable and digital video, we estimate that a
typical adult now devotes approximately 16% of his/her total TV/video viewing to ad-free content.
Interestingly, while the actual amount of ad-free TV/video is about the same for young, middle aged
and older adults (about six hours per person/per week), because the younger segment watches so
much less of other forms of TV, ad-free represents 23% of its total consumption compared to only
12% for those aged 55+.”
“Table 31 takes a selection of 20 primetime shows aired by the networks and reveals both their
past week viewing levels by Netflix users and a relative index showing how their viewing of these
shows compared to the full GfK MRI sample. For example, The Big Bang Theory attracted 17% of all
Netflix users in the past week, which was 9% higher than the show’s weekly reach among all
respondents (109 index). On the other hand, older skewed shows like NCIS, Law & Order: SVU and
60 Minutes indexed below par among Netflix users, although indices aside, such shows still attained
respectable audience levels among Netflix users. Youthful or animated entries like Marvel’s Agents
of S.H.I.E.L.D. or The Simpsons attained high indices. What was not evident in the show-by-show
findings was any sign that Netflix users were shunning network TV primetime fare as part of a
massive protest against low quality programming. Instead, they simply appear to be more
discriminating about the shows they watch, probably recording many for delayed viewing so they
could skip the ads. But they’re certainly not abstaining across-the-board.”
From Chapter II. The Business Of Television:
“Table 4 compares our estimates of the share of total 2015 ad revenues by platform with the
corresponding figure for “advertising impressions”— in effect, commercial GRPs. As can be seen,
the five broadcast networks garner 21.2% of the dollars, but deliver only 16.4% of the ad
impressions. On the other hand, lower priced syndication, and especially national cable,
significantly increase their share of GRPs; national cable goes from an ad dollar share of 33.9% to
49.2% in impressions. The other side of the coin is spot TV, where each of the platforms
underperforms in GRP delivery relative to ad spending.”
“Advertiser brand managers and marketing directors may think that their TV buys are now
targeting more engaged audiences than before, for that is how the concept and the attendant
statistical machinations have been presented to them, but there is little concrete support for this
assumption. Were it really true that a higher proportion of viewers are garnered in engagementdriven TV buys compared to the situation prevailing before, shouldn’t there be some tangible
result? Are commercial recall scores rising steadily? Are there any sales of share-of-market lifts that
can be traced to reaching more engaged viewers? The answer to both questions is no.”
“We have examined the 4As data and adjusted it using information gleaned from other sources to
show how the big agency 30-second commercial production cost norm has grown since 1965. As
shown in Table 20, where a dedicated :30 in 1965 cost about $15,000 to produce, the
corresponding cost in 2015 is 26 times higher, at $385,000.”
From Chapter III. TV’s Audience Dynamics:
“Table 5 presents an interesting analysis of trends in heavy and light viewer quintiles by age and
education. In 1968, 33% of the heaviest adult viewing quintile was aged 18-34, but the
corresponding percentage in 2015 was only 17%. This is no doubt due to the shrinking population
of younger adults (plus their use of alternative digital venues) and the increase of young women
into the labor force. A similar trend, but in the opposite direction, is evident for adults 55+. These
constituted 39% of the heaviest viewers in 1968, but increased to 53% in 2015, thanks to the
overall aging of the population.”
“The buying side of the equation must also be considered. With so many channels and platforms to
evaluate, the ad agencies have begun to concentrate their negotiations with fewer sellers. Although
the antidote to rating fragmentation is to buy time on more and more channels, in many cases the
agencies are making volume GRP deals with preferred selling partners, simply to ease their
workloads. The result is that their buys are not being spread out on as many channels as might be
expected, thereby reducing the actual reach of many brand schedules below the theoretical
“dispersed” levels shown in the tables used by media planners.”
From Chapter IV. TV Program Appeals:
“Table 8 presents the findings of an exclusive analysis we perform each year, which estimates how
an average TV home divides it total set usage by program type. In the early-1950s, the big draws on
TV were varieties, not only in primetime but in the daytime hours as well, followed by children’s
fare (Howdy Doody, Captain Video, Kukla Fran & Ollie, etc.), dramas (mostly anthologies) and sports.
This changed dramatically with the infusion of filmed Hollywood action-adventure-western fare,
starting in the mid-1950s and the advent of hosts of popular star-helmed sitcoms and quality
movies. It’s worth noting that the percentage of TV consumption allocated to news has remained
quite constant since the early-1960s, ranging between 10-14%. And, as noted earlier, the reality
genre—thanks primarily to its many representatives on cable—has surged to the top, and is
currently vying with dramas and movies for first place, with each attracting 13% of all set usage.”
“Another indicator of audience appeal is the amount of time a viewer spends watching a given
channel. GfK MRI asks its respondents how much time they spent watching cable channels in the
past week, and the typical answers ranged from 2.5-3 hours. We took a look at respondents who
claimed to watch 5+ hours per week, per GFK MRI’s spring 2015 survey, and ranked channels by
those with the highest and lowest percentages of these heavy viewers. Galavision, a Spanish
language channel, ranked number one, with a reported 32.1% of its viewers watching 5+ hours per
week. Movie channels also fared well, as did channels that appeal to older viewers, such as Fox
News, TV Land and ION. On the other hand, the channels with the lowest percentages of heavy
viewers were a mixed bag, but almost all of them had low overall viewership to begin with (see
Table 18).”
“Although the age of the broadcast networks’ primetime audience continued to be broadly
representative of the overall population, the advent of cable and the ensuing rating fragmentation
in the 1990s and thereafter changed everything as far as ABC/CBS/NBC were concerned. The
emergence of youth-targeted alternative broadcast networks like Fox, UPN and the WB also
siphoned off 18-34-year-old viewers, teens and children. As a result, the median age of the average
ABC, CBS and NBC primetime viewer has risen steadily to its current all-time high of 56 years. This
is 18 years above the corresponding figure for the total population, which has also risen but at a far
slower pace (sees Table 24).”
From Chapter V. Viewer Involvement and Engagement:
“Despite all of the pitfalls in engagement research, when used in a sensible manner the data has
much to tell us. Because they are so readily available and cover a multitude of programs and
network types, the attentiveness studies are particularly noteworthy and, in many cases, are
predictive of future audience attainment and program popularity. At the outset, many of cable’s
high impact and “edgier” dramas—shows like The Sopranos and The Walking Dead—may attain
fully attentive scores as high as 85-90% when they first appear, as was the case with All In The
Family in the 1971 Simmons studies. What happens in subsequent surveys is a critical indicator. If
the attentiveness scores begin to soften, as often happens as a series runs out of gas or becomes
overly repetitive, they may spiral down to the 70% level, then to 65% or lower. While this seems
like a good performance compared to shows that only garner full attention ratings of 50-55%, in
reality, the downward trend for the formerly edgy drama indicates not only that it has lost its
luster, but also that its ratings will likely continue to fall. The series has run its course.”
From Chapter VI. How TV Ads Work:
“Dial switching is only one manifestation of commercial avoidance. There are others, like leaving
the room or engaging in distracting activities. Recognizing this, some researchers have opted for
observational techniques, using cameras or family members to watch viewers while sets were in
use. Others rely on the claims of viewers, usually obtained shortly after exposure. Table 7
summarizes the findings of 13 studies that attempted to measure the percentage of program
viewers who actually watched a commercial break. As indicated, commercial viewing rates were
well below their program viewing counterparts in every case. On average, the loss was about 40%.”
“As with other research, this study demonstrated that high recall does not always translate into
effective persuasion. For example, funny commercials were most memorable (44.4% recall), but
performed less impressively in persuasiveness (+5.0%). Indeed, their persuasiveness levels were
only 11% as high as their recall scores. In contrast, commercials making health and nutritional
claims fared much better in motivating power, even though they scored low in recall. Although only
31.6% of those who saw this sort of commercial remembered their exposure, 6.3% were persuaded
to change to the advertised brand (or, at least, to try it). This represented a 20% persuasiveness-torecall ratio, the best of any variable evaluated (see Table 12).”
“If we accept the accuracy of such findings, the conclusions are obvious. Within a few minutes, and
probably no later than 10 or 15 minutes, virtually everyone who sees a typical commercial has lost
conscious or “top of mind” recall of the experience; however, the memory lingers in the inner
recesses of the viewer’s mind, where information gleaned from prior exposures to the same ad
campaign is also stored. If the consumer “buys” the basic premise in an advertiser’s TV ad
campaign, this can trigger a powerful motivational impulse when the moment is right, with positive
sales results for the brand in question.”
“Numerous ad agencies, research firms and gurus have explored the issue of wearout. Some have
come up with “rules of thumb,” implying that these apply to all situations. One of these holds that
it’s time to change the commercial after it attains a 20 frequency (2,000 GRPs). A related claim is
that an average commercial’s impact erodes by 4-5% for every day it airs. Frankly, such statements
are not very helpful for those seeking to really understand the wearout phenomenon. The only way
to approach this issue sensibly is with hard cause and effect indicators geared to provide insights
for various types of product classes involving highly “elastic” or “inelastic” share-of-market
scenarios, varying media budgets, specific brand positioning strategies and all of the other relevant
variables. Magic formulas just don’t cut it.”
“Faced with mounting audience fragmentation on TV and rising media costs, marketing directors
are acutely concerned with finding a cost-efficient means of developing sufficient awareness for
their ad campaigns. While research reveals that even a desultory national TV campaign, with
approximately 500-1,000 target GRPs behind it, can attain a 30% awareness, most marketers seek
levels that are considerably higher than this—65-70% being a typical objective. But how many
GRPs does it take to attain this goal? And how much media weight is required?”
“Thanks to the targeting flexibility afforded by cable, it is possible to fashion daypart/network type
and program genre schedules that minimize audience duplication between competing ad
campaigns. For example, using Nielsen or GfK MRI data, it can be determined how many people who
are exposed to one type of TV schedule are also exposed to alternate schedules. By tinkering with
its program type mix, a brand may be able to stretch out the interval between the time a viewer
“sees” one of its commercials and also sees the competing brand’s message. If the average time span
between such occurrences is extended from 2.5 days to 4.5 days due to the use of less duplicated
programming, this could represent a significant improvement in the motivating power of the small
brand’s campaign. Now its ad message has more time to sink in, without being almost immediately
negated by an effective pitch by the rival brand.”