Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television United States Entertainment

Streaming Accounts For Nearly One-Fifth of Total U.S. TV Watching (techcrunch.com) 43

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Streaming eats up a big chunk of viewers' time, though it's still outweighed by traditional linear TV. From a report: That's according to the latest Total Audience Report from Nielsen -- its first Total Audience Report to use smart TV data from Gracenote, and one that's particularly focused on "the flash point of the 'streaming wars'" (as Senior Vice President of Audience Insights Peter Katsingris puts it in his introduction). The firm reports that among U.S. homes that are capable over-the-top streaming, 19% of their TV time was spent on streaming during fourth quarter of 2019. Within that streaming time, Netflix accounted for 31%, compared to 21% for YouTube, 12% for Hulu, 8% for Amazon and 28% for other services. The Gracenote data also allows Nielsen to analyze the full universe of content available to U.S. viewers -- yes, there's a lot of content out there. The firm concludes that through December 2019, viewers had access 646,152 unique program titles, up 10% from 2018. And among those titles, 9% were available exclusively on subscription video on demand services like Netflix.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Streaming Accounts For Nearly One-Fifth of Total U.S. TV Watching More

Streaming Accounts For Nearly One-Fifth of Total U.S. TV Watching

Comments Filter:
  • Why do you think they call it programming? Television programming.
  • When the web first started, the idea of images in web pages was very exciting. We only dreamed what we could do with more bandwidth one day. Now, I would imagine most of it is being used for watching "TV". Jesus, what a waste. People are so incredibly stupid.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rho ( 6063 )

      The Internet was supposed to make us philosopher kings, instead we became snitches and scolds.

    • Being able to individually select relevant video streams, with a significant catalog of educative documentaries and entertainment options, rather than sticking to whatever trash is currently on TV, seems like a significant advance to me. By contrast, believing that Internet access would prevent us from "resting" in front of a TV seems fictitious to me. Of course, the system can be always misused, but in my opinion streaming is a significant advance from programmed live TV.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        At the end of the day, it's still just entertainment. Bread and circuses. People, by and large, are not using the Internet to improve their and other people's lives. They're using it to watch stupid shit on TV and to jerk off.

        • Streaming TV is an improved form of TV. If you compare it to traditional TV, there is a clear improvement. It actually (but minimally, I fully agree) improves your life, in that when you sit in front of the TV, you only see programs that are relevant to you.

          The existence of streaming TV does not prevent you from using the internet for alternative, higher moral goals. But streaming TV is a form of TV, it should not be compared to the original web or its aspirations, because it is a completely different appli

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DogDude ( 805747 )
            I understand that not all of the Internet is used for mindless entertainment. I was bemoaning the fact that most of the Internet's bandwidth is used for, and most people use the Internet only for mindless entertainment. If all of that same bandwidth was used for something useful or productive, I can't even imagine what the world would be like today.

            • So your general thought is to take the most informative thing per bandwidth - some sort of academic text document delivered over some sort of bbs - and then have people actively spend their time reading it to the point of the bandwidth of the internet.

              So 466 Tbps (after searching for "global internet bandwidth") - and some quick searching didn't show me average academic paper size - so I'll say 50 pages times 1 page (apparently 2kb from another search) - so let's say 100kb.

              So if we were reading 4,600,000,00

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DogDude ( 805747 )
                I learned to fix all sorts of stuff around my buildings before the Internet. I used things called "books" and I would find them at a place called "library". I'm glad that you like videos for learning how to do things, but I would argue that's not an of improvement over using books.

                I agree that reading papers don't take much bandwidth. But, I was always hoping that there'd be some other use of bandwidth that I can't even think of, other than providing entertainment.

                • And some dude learned from spoken word at his auto shop from the old guy that lived on the corner. There are clear improvements to books and then the web, the most obvious not having to go to the library to look up simple things. I can't believe you're arguing against looking stuff up on the web and advocating going to the library to do it. Are you sure you believe this argument?

                  Dismissing that tutorial videos are useful for how to do stuff in a world where new products and regulations come out constantl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ranton ( 36917 )

      When the web first started, the idea of images in web pages was very exciting. We only dreamed what we could do with more bandwidth one day. Now, I would imagine most of it is being used for watching "TV". Jesus, what a waste. People are so incredibly stupid.

      We seem to be using this extra bandwidth for everything I remember people dreaming of 25 years ago when Internet usage started to grow. Video content, online gaming / video chat, increased server-side processing, and more connected devices is the best my memory can come up with, and we have all of that now. Perhaps you were hoping for augmented / virtual reality simulations, but we are closing in on that today too.

      Video will likely always be the largest use of this bandwidth because it needs so much of it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      Well *I* use the internet for video game images instead of TV. That's better, right?

  • Added together, Nielsen said U.S. consumers now spend “nearly 12 hours [per day] across TV, TV-connected devices, radio, computers, smartphones and tablets.”

    So is Nielsen including time spent on your computer at work or is that number insane?

    • Probably. They said computers, smartphones and tablets. A lot of people I know with a desk job listen to netflix or something else for most of the day why they are working. So while it may not be getting 100% of their focus. They are still consuming it. It's not really much different than when a house wife in the past would have the TV on in the background while cleaning or cooking dinner. The content is still being consumed, even if it's not the only thing going on.
      • Well Nielsen, computer smartphones and tablets are actually general porous computers so why did you have to list 3 categories when you just give a total anyway, this makes no cense

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          Android phones and tablets are general-purpose. iPhone and iPad are for only those purposes that Apple has approved.

  • ...its first Total Audience Report to use smart TV data from Gracenote.

    Does that mean no data from all the Apple TV, Roku, Amazon and other similar set-top box/streaming sticks hardware? If not, then their numbers are too low.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tsqr ( 808554 )

      ...its first Total Audience Report to use smart TV data from Gracenote.

      Does that mean no data from all the Apple TV, Roku, Amazon and other similar set-top box/streaming sticks hardware? If not, then their numbers are too low.

      From this [techcrunch.com], linked to from TFA: Gracenote may be best known for providing metadata to music services like iTunes and Spotify, but it has also developed what it calls Video Automatic Content Recognition technology, which is currently embedded in 27 million smart TVs. This allows Gracenote to analyze the video image and determine what you’re watching in real time.

      If that description is accurate, then Gracenote can see what the viewer is watching regardless of the signal source, as long as the TV has Gra

      • If that description is accurate, then Gracenote can see what the viewer is watching regardless of the signal source, as long as the TV has Gracenote's "Video Automatic Content Recognition" installed. That's pretty goddamn creepy.

        Did you see the next line? They want to be able to track whether you saw an ad and follow up with related ads on your laptop/phone tomorrow.

        Yeah, creepy doesn't begin to describe it. Later in the article they assured us you'll be informed and have to opt in. I really doubt they'll make it clear just how closely they're watching you (yes Bob, you personally. Now stop Cheez-Whiz out of the can, that's gross.)

      • One more reason to buy dumb computer monitors instead.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tsqr ( 808554 )

          One more reason to buy dumb computer monitors instead.

          Maybe, if you're satisfied with watching TV on a small scren. But it's questionable how effective that approach might be. Any HDMI device can detect if a device is using its output signal -- that's how my DVD player can turn on when the TV input it's connected to is selected, and it's how your computer monitor can automatically switch to the latest active input. So get a dumb monitor -- if your Roku/Firestick/AppleTV/other streaming device has Video Automatic Content Recognition installed, then it can do th

          • One more reason to buy dumb computer monitors instead.

            Maybe, if you're satisfied with watching TV on a small scren.

            Digital signage displays are as large as living room televisions but behave like computer monitors.

  • at this point the people still paying the obscene prices for live TV are clueless old people too stupid to switch and learn something new and the sports nuts who live their lives through their teams and send them all their money for no return

  • > among U.S. homes that are capable over-the-top streaming, 19% of their TV time was spent on streaming... ummm... So, what about homes that *don't* have streaming, how many of those are there?
  • Not sure if we will see these numbers decrease as fragmentation in the streaming industry takes hold. Everyone is taking their balls and going home to their own streaming services which will drive up the cost and IMO make streaming less viable.

    • who says you have to pay for every service all year long? I dumped HBO once GoT was over. and I'm dumping CBS once Picard is over. Disney plus was dumped a week before Mando finished.

      only Netflix and amazon prime are kept year round

      • That's the way I do it, although I do wonder if it is sustainable for the content producers long term.
      • Personally I have Netflix and the free Amazon that comes with my wife's Prime membership. Anything else I want from other services I get through news groups, I won't pay for one or two shows on other steaming services.

  • Two reasons: crappy broadband for so many people, and stupid licensing restrictions that keep so much good content off streaming. And why does streaming content have to "expire?"

  • To me, the real take away is that only a fifth of "TV-Watching" is streaming. That seems way to low to be honest. Granted there are plenty of old folks out there like my Grandmother who just refuse to move past about 1980 technology wise. She still has a regular old cable box. It doesn't even have a DVR feature (who knew they still made those?). But that isn't the norm these days. Even for the elderly. I know more people her age that have at least one streaming service than those like her who don't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ediron2 ( 246908 )

      Just 20%?! Was my takeaway, too. I feel like 20% of the folks I know *arent* streaming.

      When my kids (now college-bound) were tykes, ReplayTV gave them commercial-free stacks of cached/streamed broadcast kid shows. Nowadays, I find them sitting in a room, streaming to a tablet or laptop apiece, while sharing / watching the big screen (streamed), or gaming on it. Sometimes, also using other devices (phones, nintendos, etc). Funny part is when the phone is doing academic collaboration, laptop is doing home

  • How that compares to OTA, cable, physical media and torrenting.

  • Streaming on laptop? Roku? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @01:13PM (#59715994)

    I spend a good chunk of my video time watching Netflix on a laptop. I wonder how that counts? TFA implies the only things they measured were people using actual discrete monitors, not computers or mobile devices. If so, I think the numbers are wildly misleading.

    The remainder is watching time-delayed sports (Go Sharks!) using a dumb TV/Roku stick/Sling. Does that count as streaming? I'm specifically wondering about the Sling (or YouTubeTV, Hulu Live, etc.) services, which pretend they are DVRs recording and relaying broadcast TV. Network time delay is kinda in the middle between pure streaming (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Disney+) and honest-to-God live TV.

    Maybe I'm weird. I haven't watched actual "live" TV since I got my first VCR which could edit out ads (a ProScan tape-based VHS VCR, not a DVR. Seriously. It actually worked.), way back in the '90s.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users never use the Help key.

Close