Never said this was just about OTA. The comparison holds and was further re-enforced in the full article, whih is unfortuantely only available to paid subscribers.
However it is about the comparison, cable doing better than OTA. OTA is still doing poorly, and probably on the verge of a big decline in revenues from advertising.
Uh, you ask me to back up my claims. The best number I saw was around 42% projected growth in 2010.
I said next year. The source is Leichtman Research Group (LRG), of Durham, N.H.
With more and more providers giving out DVRs standard, you will see an increase, but that doesn't mean they are used to skip commercials.
It doesn't meant that they're not used to skip commercials. As a matter of fact, one of the articles you quoted later in your reply included, "
According to a study conducted by Jupiter Research in 2006, DVR users sped their way through almost $8 billion in advertising and that number should rise in all subsequent years."
OK, you are a power user. So am I. Most viewers are still struggling with 3 remotes because they can't figure out how to combine them.
However, many can and many more are every day.
You also didn't address the main point that when you are busy trying to skip the commercials, you are actually paying close attention, and that can be and is being exploited.
You didn't present evidence that people make purchasing decisions based on having fast forwarded over advertising. There is no evidence that fast forwarding over commercials is better than people actually watching them, and no reason to think that that would be the case. Furthermore, that doesn't address the fact that people are more likely to ignore commercials. There is no good news here for broadcasters... what you're presenting is a paltry consolation prize.
Also, here is a reference showing that DVR ownership doesn't translate into skipping commercials
46% Watch DVR With Commercials - Daniel Indiviglio - Business - The Atlantic
Actually, it shows that more than half of people do skip commercials.
Didn't say higher. I said similar. Here are some references.
Sorry but those references don't fit the bill. The first reference is an opinion piece that distorts the results of one test. That test did nothing to gauge the effectiveness of commercials; it actually measured the physical response to fast forwarding. That confounding factor is something that technology columnists, who like television and hate broadcasters and advertising, like to leave out of their articles.
The second article is again a consolation prize. TiVo applies overlay technology. There is no reason to believe it is any more effective than a real-time ad of the same duration. And so it effectively reduces commercial effectiveness by a quarter or more (since it displays for a shorter period of time than full commercials).
Similarly, the third article also avoids any business analysis, choosing to report an uptick in searching, without even trying to normalize for other factors or trying to monetize the impact. It was a novelty. Even if there was some significant impact (and that's not clear) how long until the novelty wears off?
The fourth article is just like the second, essentially proving that commercial effectiveness is substantially reduced, since it advocates a static image for 30 seconds, something which folks who don't fast forward will find annoying, by the way, but will only register for commercial skippers for a few seconds. Again, you've shown no evidence that seeing a static image for a few seconds has similar impact on purchasing decisions as watching an informative commercial.
Also note that more and more content providers are setting up VoD as an alternative to timeshifting where the commercial cannot be fast forwarded
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/media/25abc.html?_r=1
Yes, that's a solution. Very true.
