Measuring ad revenue from cable channels and non-cable channels is almost an artificial distinction these days since the same 5 companies own them both, or at least the content for both.
I wonder what is the total TV ad revenue per year is for all channels NOT owned by Viacom, Fox, Disney, GE, or TW?
- Tom Craig Birkmaier wrote:
At 11:45 PM -0700 7/17/07, johnwillkie wrote:5 or 6 channels get 40% of the prime-time viewing. That's "about" (I have to flag these terms, just in case) 7% of the viewing per channel. The other 60% of the time, people view one of about 50 channels. That's 1.2% of theviewing per channel. ON AVERAGE.The ONLY time the networks get close to 40% share is prime time, and that's during sweeps. It's closer to 30% now. And these stats include ALL of the homes that do not subscribe to a multichannel service. In multichannel homes the percentage of time spent watching the network fare is considerably lower.Cable networks are not typically concerned about big rating shares. They accumulate audiences for their programs by offering multiple opportunities to view them. Their business model typically focuses on providing advertisers with targeted niche audiences. For example consider the amount of money and ads that Lowe's and Home Depot run on HGTV.A quick aside - as I have reported many times on the list, Scripps Howard, the parent of HGTV, FOOD NETWORK, Fine Living and DIY, has three major businesses: Newspapers, Broadcast TV and Cable Networks. The cable networks are the crown jewels for Scripps, growing consistently while the others decline.Which is more valuable to cable viewers? The channels that cable companies pay plenty of money for -- with little viewing -- or the channels that cablecompanies pay nothing or virtually nothing for -- with ON AVERAGE 6x the viewing?IMHO the cable networks. I spend FAR more time watching them than the broadcast networks. And the good old days of paying nothing for the broadcast nets are over. Now I must pay for the broadcast nets too. And the cable networks provide plenty of ad revenue for the cable companies, and cheaper access to a TV market for local businesses than the overpriced network affiliates.I don't understand your math. Just because a few channels get large audiences does not make them more valuable. Once you get past the top 25 network shows the audiences that are delivered by cable and broadcast TV are often comparable. Average audiences are now in the 1-4 million range.What is important to cable viewers is what they WANT to watch, and increasingly it is NOT the networks.I read articles everyday about the upfront market. I think CBS has rathergood results in that area, it's just taking longer and longer every year. So, by using YOUR figures, cable gets 1/10 the ad revenues of broadcast.Which form of distribution is more valuable to advertisers? I should alsopoint out that cable has MORE AVAILABILITIES PER HOUR, and MORE CHANNELS than broadcast.Not my figures, but audited figures published by the cable industry. And how the hell is $4 million for the first quarter of 2007 out of a total of $11.4 million 1/10th?The fact that cable has more avails is a damn good thing, given the high cost of advertising on the broadcast nets and affiliates, and the limited inventory they have to offer.Why are you so negative about cable. Audience fragmentation is a FACT OF LIFE. Cable networks provide access to content that the broadcast networks do not provide. Some cable networks provide alternatives to the news bias of the Networks. And cable networks provide a vastly larger palette of sports programming for the sports nuts out there.The fact that in recent years, 35% of the revenues for Disney Corp. came from ESPN, the single most expensive channel (>$3 per month) in the entire lineup should tell you something.But, you slice the figures your way. Lemme see. That syndicatedprogramming. What percentage airs on cable (0%). Look up the definition ofsyndicated programming. You need to add it to broadcast revenues, sincethis is the national "barter time" portion of syndicated spots. Funny howyou just let it lay there ...I did not let it lay there. I stated (correctly) that cable garnered $4 million out of 11.4 million in TV ad revenues for the first quarter of 2007. You stated (incorrectly) that broadcast generates $90 billion in ad revenues per year, while cable only generates $4 billion per year. I provided evidence that you were wrong, and you still try to skew the facts.I guess it's possible that cable does barter deals for programming (where a portion of the avails go to the program distributor), but I've yet to hear of it. I do hear a lot about the cash deals that they do for programming.(I think, by watching, that "The Sopranos" on A&E involves some barter in the form of HBO spots.)The networks have not only more eyeballs, and higher cpms, they are able to capitalize on it. Cable spots just aren't as easy to acquire, the "service"is variable and sloppy. Placing ads on all 5 tv networks in prime time, over a week, you get great GRP (gross rating points). Doing the same oncable requires you to place ads on many more networks, and you still miss agood portion of the audience, mostly mature or lower demographics. Manythings I see advertised on network TV news (Polident, Milk of Magnesia) areonly advertised on network TV.Interesting but mostly irrelevant.We all know the strengths of the networks in generating large mass audiences. We also know that they pay through the nose for their programming and we pay through the nose for it...At the checkout counter and now in our cable bills.Somehow, you only seem to care about ads for big un-targeted audiences that are very expensive in terms of CPM, and place no value on niche audiences that offer access to TV advertisers at much lower CPMs. There will always be room for both, and the networks are struggling to keep what they have left from declining even more, while the audience for cable networks is growing.As far as I'm concerned I have little interest in either, unless they offer something I am truly interested in. Consumers are getting fed up with the increasing ad loads AND having to pay for the programming too. In another decade we will be talking about less than half of the TV audience watching all of what exists today. It will be cheaper to buy the content we want via the Internet.Ever see a Wal-Mart ad on cable? I haven't: they are choosy, cheap, have a lower demographic and want the most bang for their buck. They choose local spot and network TV. (I've seen them doing participations or billboards onABC World News.)I see VERY LITTLE advertising from Wal Mart. But their core audience matches up very well with what is left of the OTA audiences. You go where your customers are.Cable underperforms their market share -- that is, their revenues as apercentage are less than their share of eyeballs. TV Networks and stationsover perform their market share. Boo-hoo.You call it over performing. I and many people on Madison call it over priced.Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
-- Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
