Viewers turn away from TV in 2009
Total prime time TV audiences have fallen below 5m in Australia, according to a new analysis of viewing data so far this year. This is despite the arrival of the new Freeview and subscription TV channels to tempt viewers.
According to the analysis of figures across the prime 6pm to 10.30pm slot, the average audience has fallen from 5,027,868 in 2008 to 4,969,810 in 2009. This marks a decline of around 60,000 prime time viewers per evening – or a fall of just over 1%. This is despite the Australian population growing by more than 2% during the same period.
The comparison of OzTam data from the beginning of this year until October 17 was carried out on behalf of the pay TV industry. It covers both official ratings and non-ratings weeks.
The decline was concentrated in free to air television, which saw a fall of 1.8% in the prime time period.
I’m shocked! That’s it’s only 1%.
interesting headline for what is a 2% decline
1% decline- talk about the market share of TV in freefall!
I find Mumbrella, more and more lately, relies on tabloid style headlines to get click throughs.
@Art & Larry
I disagree. In the context of media & marketing, if media buyers consequently move 1% of their spends away from TV it could make a huge difference to the medium(s) that pick it up.
@jamie – cos TV has dipped 1% there should be a 1% decline in spend? how does that work.,
that logic is flawed … it’s not quantity of time it’s quality of engagement.
@ Larry
I should have been clearer. I know the decline in viewers doesn’t and shouldn’t mean an automatic like-for-like shift in media spend. My point is simply that 1) this isn’t exactly a good news story for TV and 2) TV budgets are comparatively so large that any shift in spends can mean a great deal to emerging media. Therefore, many Mumbrella readers will find this piece newsworthy.
I certainly find it newsworthy, certainly given the financial climate. We are told that more people will be staying at home so I would have expected a significant rise in viewing figures. i suppose it says a lot for the quality of programmes on free to air this year.
Considering the absolute arse has fallen out of mags and newspapers- I wouldve thought a 1% decline is a pretty tame figure in comparison.
Why is it that every media writer gleefully predicts the imminent decline and fall of TV in spite of the data portraying exactly the opposite. If anything your headline should have read: ” TV viewers stay tuned in”
Its definately newsworthy, but I do think the header was a little… shall we say, inflamatory for a 1% drop.
Gezza- its usually the bloggers- who rely on a mass internet audience to perpetuate their own online popularity.
Less people watching TV =
Obviously more people reading their blogs =
More (bullshit) news stories to try to change media buyers perceptions =
Can I have more money for those banner ads now? No one watches TV anymore, havent you heard?
I think you are all right and all a little wrong.
The interesting thing to me is that TV still reaches a mass audience. The other media (Newspapers, Magazines & Cinema – I’m looking at you) are suffering bigger much bigger declines.
The really interesting thing from a mass media standpoint is that there are going to be fewer and fewer TRULY mass mediums. Given the vagaries of supply and demand, I suspect that these 1.5M people plus audiences are going to become more valuable rather than less valuable in the future.
Despite all the change that the “experts” talk of when discussing media fragmentation the interesting thing is that TV will emerge from this with a stranglehold over the “Mass” in mass market.
I cant believe it is at 2%…. especially when each month the figures for online video is outdoing the month before… Wait till 3 and 4g mobiles become the norm..
“There are currently four* billion mobile phones in use worldwide and there are almost seven billion people. Mobiles have exceeded the number of TVs and computers and unlike those devices, mobiles are carried everywhere and are hardly ever turned off. Achieving this milestone confirms there is continued solid demand in the mobile industry and it puts the global market on a path to reach a staggering six* billion connections by 2013. A captive audience of four billion people represents an awesome opportunity for advertisers to grab their attention, even though it’s on a small screen, with well targeted relevant advertising messages via mobile websites.”
Chris A- If you spent more time actually reading the article before throwing yourself into some astrix ridden diatribe about how many mobile phones there are in the world, you’d realise the figure’s 1%, not 2%.
What about the rise in uptake of PVR’s and other digital TV recording devices that allow viewers to easily break free from the TV Networks broadcast schedule and watch shows in their own time.
These viewers are still watching free-to-air TV, they are just not being counted by OzTam at present. Perhaps because they can easily skip the ads.
Please please please no adverts on the mobile. It pains me to watch a 30 second Special K ad to get to the video of the 27 second news report on SMH.com
TV has become “cheap.” Many nights is simply a wasteland – both Freeview and Pay TV. And as for the new digital channels…….
Regardless of how many people are watching TV, the advertising dollars the medium attracts should be linked directly to how much TV is contributing towards various advertisers sales. Indeed, if fewer people watch but those that do watch buy more stuff then actually more money should flow into TV. It is now possible to analyse TV (and other media) in this way, and actually far more appropriate to do so. The ‘mine is bigger than yours’ approach to selling media is what we should be doing away with.
One factor that isn’t showing in YOY comparisons is time shifted viewing.
OzTAM’s 2009 panels only capture and report live viewing, but from next year they’ll also release As Live (viewing on the same day) + Timeshift (viewing after the day of broadcast but viewed within seven days). Based on overseas data there’s good reason to believe the net effect will show an increase in total viewing in 000s and time spent viewing.
That’s only one additional consideration. Even with the current data we could look at changes by channel, variance across the year, commercial FTA vs total FTA, and so on. The real picture is complex and nuanced, and “viewers turn away from TV in 2009” isn’t a particularly deep summary of the trends.
have to say Art Vandalay makes for good reading.
chris a – nice figures but what do they actually mean. conference speak is lovely but falls down when it comes to real world scenarios generally.
Want a simple explanation?
The OzTAM data is for LIVE viewing only. Anyone who uses a DVR, their Foxtel iQ, their TiVo, burns to DVD, or records to VCR (yes they still exist) and then watch the programme back aren’t counted.
With the explosion in sales of DVRs, Foxtel’s push on iQ, and Seven backing TiVo this simply HAS to be having an effect.
The good news is that starting with the 2010 television year, OzTAM will be reporting any playback that occurs within seven days. All that unreported viewing will be reported, so expect 2010 to show growth on 2009, simply because the “lost” time-shifted viewing will be incorporated.
If you look at US data (Nielsen) around about 5% of all viewing is time-shifted (with a PVR penetration rate of around 25%), and in the UK around 4% (BARB) of all viewing is time-shifted (with a PVR penetration rate or around 23%). Given that Australia’s PVR is around the same, I’d expect to see around the same lift in 2010.
I wonder what the headlines will read this time next year? Don’t forget what Mark Twain is reported as saying upon reading his own obituary in the New York Journal … “the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.
I can’t find the numbers so I can’t quote them but I thought the bigger story was the decline in time spent watching TV and the increase in time on the Internet. I know in the UK there is more time spent online that watching TV. I think in this country this is still controversial.
I am surpised the figures aren’t higher I’d like the programmers to see if they can appreciate the programme they broadcast in between the advertisments, infomercials and station promos. No wonder we station switch or record to replay were we can manage the barrage. Surely the bean counters can work a better balnce , where the advertiser gets a better deal, and so to will the the viewer. SBS has a good balance.
Yeah, cause everyone watches the ads on their timeshifted PVR’s so they are a REALLY valuable audience for advertisers.
One of the big advantages of a PVR is to skip the ads. Isn’t it? So you can discount 90% plus of these people surely?
Carrob: I think the point he’s making is in regard to overall audience numbers, not necessarily the penetration of the ads.