NY TIMES: Barely Keeping Up in TV’s New Golden Age

Not long ago, a friend at work told me I absolutely, positively must watch “Broad City” on Comedy Central, saying it was a slacker-infused hilarity.

My reaction? Oh no, not another one.

The vast wasteland of television has been replaced by an excess of excellence that is fundamentally altering my media diet and threatening to consume my waking life in the process. I am not alone. Even as alternatives proliferate and people cut the cord, they are continuing to spend ever more time in front of the TV without a trace of embarrassment.

I was never one of those snobby people who would claim to not own a television when the subject came up, but I was generally more a reader than a watcher. That was before the explosion in quality television tipped me over into a viewing frenzy.

Something tangible, and technical, is at work. The addition of ancillary devices onto what had been a dumb box has made us the programming masters of our own universes. Including the cable box — with its video on demand and digital video recorder — and Apple TV, Chromecast, PlayStation, Roku, Wii and Xbox, that universe is constantly expanding. Time-shifting allows not just greater flexibility, but increased consumption. According to Nielsen, Americans watched almost 15 hours of time-shifted television a month in 2013, two more hours a month than the year before.

Photo

Kevin Spacey on “House of Cards.” TV shows can now follow viewers wherever they travel and whenever they have spare time. CreditNathaniel Bell for Netflix

And what a feast. Right now, I am on the second episode of Season 2 of “House of Cards” (Netflix), have caught up on “Girls” (HBO) and am reveling in every episode of “Justified” (FX). I may be a little behind on “The Walking Dead” (AMC) and “Nashville” (ABC) and have just started “The Americans” (FX), but I am pretty much in step with comedies like “Modern Family” (ABC) and “Archer” (FX) and like everyone one else I know, dying to see how “True Detective” (HBO) ends. Oh, and the fourth season of “Game of Thrones” (HBO) starts next month.

Whew. Never mind being able to hold all these serials simultaneously in my head, how can there possibly be room for anything else? So far, the biggest losers in this fight for mind share are not my employer or loved ones, but other forms of media.

My once beloved magazines sit in a forlorn pile, patiently waiting for their turn in front of my eyes. Television now meets many of the needs that pile previously satisfied. I have yet to read the big heave on Amazon in The New Yorker, or the feature on the pathology of contemporary fraternities in the March issue of The Atlantic, and while I have an unhealthy love of street food, I haven’t cracked the spine on Lucky Peach’s survey of the same. Ditto for what looks like an amazing first-person account in Mother Jones from the young Americans who were kidnapped in Iran in 2009. I am a huge fan of the resurgent trade magazines like Adweek and The Hollywood Reporter, but watching the products they describe usually wins out over reading about them.

Magazines in general had a tough year, with newsstand sales down over 11 percent, John Harrington, an industry analyst who tracks circulation, said.

And then there are books. I have a hierarchy: books I’d like to read, books I should read, books I should read by friends of mine and books I should read by friends of mine whom I am likely to bump into. They all remain on standby. That tablets now contain all manner of brilliant stories that happen to be told in video, not print, may be partly why e-book salesleveled out last year. After a day of online reading that has me bathed in the information stream, when I have a little me-time, I mostly want to hit a few buttons on one of my three remotes — cable, Apple, Roku — and watch the splendors unfurl.

It used to be that I could at least use travel time to catch up on reading, but now airplanes have become mediated, wired spaces as well. And even when I get to a hotel or a vacation spot, my media library comes with me. This summer, I used a skinny little DSL connection at my cabin in the woods to watch “The Newsroom” on HBO Go.

In the past, great shows, entire seasons of them, used to go whooshing past me. Now they are always there, waiting for me to hit play. Like my dog, they are friendly and tend to follow me around seeking my attention.

It means people like me end up going to fewer movies. Sitting at home with a big, throbbing stack of quality entertainment and a big old screen on which to view it, am I really going to spend $12 to sit by a stranger, watch more commercials than I do at home — you cannot skip them in the movie theater — and hope that what I see on screen was worth getting in a cold car and competing for parking and seating?

All the new windows for content have created an in-migration of creative interest. David Fincher, one of Hollywood’s most coveted directors, followed up producing “House of Cards” by signing on to make a series for HBO called “Utopia.” Guillermo del Toro, a big-deal director, has created a series called “The Strain” for FX. Oliver Stone spent a great deal of time making a history program on Showtime and now word comes that Robert Redford is doing documentaries for CNN.

Even at the Oscars, Hollywood’s biggest night, TV seemed like the cool hipster at the party. Ellen DeGeneres’s just-folks delivery treated incandescent celebrities as if they were regular people who like eating pizza and being on television. The winner of the award for best actor, Matthew McConaughey, has also been making a big splash on TV with “True Detective.”

At a panel about television over the weekend at the South by Southwestconference in Austin, Tex., that I moderated, Kathleen McCaffrey of HBO said that television entered people’s lives by letting go of procedurals about doctors and lawyers and telling stories about authentic, frequently flawed people.

“So much of the conversation comes from strong serialized dramas about people’s lives and how they live them,” she said.

The growing intellectual currency of television has altered the cultural conversation in fundamental ways. Water cooler chatter is now a high-minded pursuit, not just a way to pass the time at work. The three-camera sitcom with a laugh track has been replaced by television shows that are much more like books — intricate narratives full of text, subtext and clues.

On the sidelines of the children’s soccer game, or at dinner with friends, you can set your watch on how long it takes before everyone finds a show in common. In the short span of five years, table talk has shifted, at least among the people I socialize with, from books and movies to television. The idiot box gained heft and intellectual credibility to the point where you seem dumb if you are not watching it.

All these riches induce pleasure, but no small amount of guilt as well. Am I a bad person because I missed “Top of the Lake” on the Sundance channel?

Television’s golden age is also a gilded cage, an always-on ecosystem of immense riches that leaves me feeling less like the master of my own universe, and more as if I am surrounded.

LIFE HACKER: TV Streaming Head-to-Head: Netflix vs Hulu vs Amazon Prime

One of the more annoying things about Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon’s television streaming libraries is the vast difference between the selection available. It would be almost impossible to get a thorough idea of who has the better library without searching for hundreds of TV shows on each service and comparing them manually. So we did just that.P

We all have our own impression of what kind of selection different companies have, but we wanted to get a clearer picture. To do that, we searched for 250 shows on Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime to see who has the best selection available for their respective paid subscription services. Just for kicks, we also threw in Amazon, iTunes, and Google Play’s selection of shows you can buy as well.P

MethodologyP

Getting a complete representation of everything that the various streaming services have to offer would be an undertaking too huge and too dense to be useful. In order to get a useful glimpse into the different libraries, here’s what we did:P

  • We counted IMDb’s top 250 TV shows by MOVIEmeter rank. IMDb ranks movies and TV shows based on a scale called MOVIEmeter, which measures how much people are searching for and interacting with certain titles (regardless of ratings, reviews, or recency). The full list can be found here. We gathered the top 250 shows according to this list to represent the shows most people are interested in, irrespective of demographic.P
  • We included partial seasons in the count. Some shows are currently airing and new episodes arrive regularly. Other services may get licenses to show half of a season. If a service has six full seasons and part of the seventh season available, we counted it as seven seasons. We did not count “best of” episode packs or holiday specials where applicable.P
  • We gave Hulu Plus special “Recent Episode” designations. While Hulu Plus offers a similar service to Netflix and Amazon Prime, it’s also the only service surveyed that offers to carry a rotating collection of the last few episodes of a show, or the entire recent season. These were counted as either the “Recent Season” or “Recent Episodes” designation, depending on the licensing scheme.P
  • We did not count shows hosted on network sites. Most networks including CBS, HGTV, Adult Swim, Fox, AMC, HBO, Showtime, and dozens more offer full episodes of shows on their own web sites (sometimes for a fee). While Hulu is pretty good at finding out if episodes are available on these sites, we did not include that availability in this analysis.P
  • We only looked at US availability. Looking at availability across different services is already pretty complicated, but accounting for differences in international licensing is a mess. Our data only includes US availability, but you may be able to use apps like Hola Unblocker to see content that’s available in countries outside your own.P

With this in mind, here’s what we found:P

TV Streaming Head-to-Head: Netflix vs Hulu vs Amazon Prime12SEXPAND

While we collected far more than just 25 shows, unfortunately showing them all would create a graphic that’s just a little bit too big to be useful. The curious, however, can check out the raw data here. Keep in mind, though, that these libraries change all the time. This data was collected on the weekend of February 22 and 23rd, but it could have changed by the time you read this.P

ConclusionsP

With the data collected, we can learn a few things about how the different services stack up.P

Netflix is the Undisputed TV Streaming KingP

Setting aside that Netflix is breaking new ground and winning awards with its streaming-only shows like House of Cards, Netflix has more than twice as many shows available to stream as Amazon Prime (122 shows vs 58 out of 250). Not only did Netflix have more than Amazon, it had just shy of half of all the shows surveyed (48.8%). So, unless you’re looking for something obscure or extremely old, you’ve got roughly a coin-flip’s chance of finding it on Netflix. P

On top of that, it has more shows that Hulu Plus and Amazon don’t carry. Netflix had 54 exclusive shows (among streaming services surveyed) versus only 17 that were exclusive to Amazon. This includes big-name shows like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead, which you can purchase on Amazon, but not stream with a Prime subscription. In other words, even if you already pay for Prime, a Netflix subscription might be worth it.P

Hulu Corners the Market on New ContentP

The one thing Netflix and Amazon both falter at is recent shows. There’s almost always a several month long delay between a season wrapping up and its arrival on streaming services. This is where Hulu Plus picks up the slack. Hulu Plus had 92 of the 250 shows surveyed. However, only 40 of them included backlogs of older seasons. 52 of the shows Hulu Plus carried were either the most recent season or a rotating set of the most recent few episodes of a show. In other words, you can use Netflix to catch up on the first four seasons, but for the fifth season that’s currently airing on TV? Hit up Hulu Plus.P

It’s also worth pointing out that, while there are a ton of shows Hulu Plus does not carry natively (only 36.8% of the shows we checked were on Hulu Plus at all), the service is pretty good at indexing other sites that also have full episodes. It won’t redirect you to direct competitors like Netflix, but it can act as a search engine for places like CBS, AMC, or HBO that have episodes available on their own sites or services. At least in that sense, Hulu is worth checking out when you want to find shows. Just keep in mind that once you leave Hulu, you’re at the mercy of the content providers themselves. Hulu returning results for HBO shows doesn’t mean that you can play them on a device that supports Hulu. That’s just Hulu’s way of helping you find where to look next.3P

Streaming Selection Still Doesn’t Hold a Candle to Purchasing ShowsP

While the bulk of this survey was aimed at comparing streaming libraries, we’d be remiss if we didn’t look at content you can buy as well. Amazon, Google Play, and iTunes all allow users to buy individual episodes or whole seasons of television shows and get unlimited access to them. Google’s selection included 170 of the 250 shows or 68% of all shows we checked. Amazon and iTunes, however, had a full 226 out of 250 or 90.4% of surveyed shows available for purchase.P

The implication of this finding is pretty clear: if you want to watch TV shows on the internet, most content providers will be happy to oblige. For a price. Now, some of us could probably refinance a home with the amount of cash we might spend trying to buy seasons for all the shows we watch, but if you’re really desperate to watch a show and it’s not available anywhere else, there is the option. At the very least, all three services are pretty good about allowing you to buy new episodes as they come out. So, there’s that.P

At the end of the day, this is just a glimpse into the average use case. I can think of a handful of shows I like to watch that weren’t even high enough on the IMDb list (MST3K anyone?). Even if Netflix has Amazon beat in the numbers, you might have all you need with Amazon. The best thing you can do is grab your five or ten favorite shows and check them out for yourself.

 

Original Link: http://lifehacker.com/tv-streaming-head-to-head-netflix-vs-hulu-vs-amazon-pr-1536006625

RECODE: Expect a Seismic Shift in Video Consumption

Expect a Seismic Shift in Video Consumption

tv_evolution

By Mitch Barns, CEO, Nielsen

When asked about the future recently, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said, “Television will change more in the next five years than in the last 50.” We agree.

Based on 70 years of watching what consumers experience, and how they buy, how they act and what they do based on their consumption of content, we see a seismic shift coming in the next five years. Nowhere is this more acute than when it comes to television and video consumption.

In fact, we see five significant and interrelated trends emerging that will shape the media business in the immediate future and beyond.

First, distribution channels will continue to merge. Devices define our media diet — be it TV, computers, mobile, or/and whatever comes next. Today, while much of the video consumed is still on traditional television, those figures migrate daily. These shifts mean that “TV” as shorthand for video content doesn’t work anymore. Ultimately, the marketplace will be device-neutral, and will follow “video.”

Some frame this in a “TV is dead” metaphor. This couldn’t be further from the truth. We access more content now than ever before: The average American consumes nearly 60 hours of content each week across different screens, including computers, mobile devices and TV sets. Viewed through the content lens, “TV” is being viewed more often, for longer, and across more occasions, platforms and devices.

Second, the advertising solution will no longer be just about demographics. Increasingly, information about consumers’ behaviors and geographic location will enhance today’s method of ferreting out customers using only age and gender as a proxy. Today, most of the digital marketplace works this way, but over time, more of the media landscape will join them. As they’ve indicated, companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable have an opportunity to push forward the addressability of video advertising. Ultimately, any brand will be able to move beyond the current proxy system to get to their precise audience on any platform.

Third, as viewers continue to move more fluidly across distribution channels, so, too, will advertising dollars. In today’s U.S. media market, those dollars total near the hundred-billion mark. As those viewers move, chief marketing officers will want to follow them in real time. For the marketplace to truly evolve into a real-time world, it will need to accurately encompass the cross-platform space so that marketers are no longer working in silos. They will need to get confirmation from a trusted independent source that their real-time dollars paid for the intended viewers, not fraudulent bot traffic or off-target audiences.

Fourth, many companies (media and otherwise) will use their own rich data to help determine who their specific consumer is. Right now, Big Data is too often a description of a problem, and not a solution. The solution will be found by marrying each company’s own data set to other, more representative information. The harnessing of this disparate data to produce simple, actionable insights will result in better decisions. Companies can use their assets — consumer relationships, ad sales relationship, and consumer insights — to build and leverage partnerships that open the door to finding their perfect consumer. Joining and unlocking this type of information is a formidable task, requiring rigorous measurement science to do it well.

Fifth, independent measurement will matter more than ever before. Globally, we see that when a market aligns around a common metric, one that is independent and trusted by all sides, the industry grows quicker and healthier. Delivering a complete and accurate view of the consumer, across all devices and distribution channels, requires the best measurement science available. While there are many planning and custom solutions out there, history shows that markets prefer to trade on a single, common, trusted measurement. That measurement requires the highest level of efficacy, confidence and transparency as it drives decisions related to millions, if not billions, of dollars of marketplace trade.

Consumer preferences over the devices and platforms used to access content will continue to change — and likely quickly. Adapting to these changes comes with growing pains, marketplace feedback and, hopefully, a bit of self-reflection to understand what needs to be reimagined. For the foreseeable future, we need to rethink the way we define TV. It needs to extend beyond a myopic view of the standard living room and big-screen experience to the myriad ways that video content is today consumed. We need proven and complete methodologies that follow representative and responsible measurement practices. Ultimately, the marketplace will demand a rigorous, independent measurement before it’s willing to trade billions of dollars.

Mitch Barns is CEO of Nielsen. Reach him @Nielsen.

Original Link: http://recode.net/2014/02/26/expect-a-seismic-shift-in-video-consumption/