The Amazing, Invisible TiVo Effect

 "...advertisers and television programmers must devise new strategies for combating the potentially disastrous effects of ad skipping." Jupiter Media

No technological development has created more hysteria and hand-wringing in the ad industry than the adoption of the DVR.

Over the past few years, the science department here at Ad Contrarian World Heaqdquarters has tried to counterbalance the intemperate ravings of pundit/lunatics by introducing some facts and perspective into the discussion.

In my most recent post on the subject, I calculated that as a result of time-shifting and ad-skipping only about 3% of total spots were being missed. A recent study, however, leads me to believe that this may be a gross exaggeration.

In fact, the true number may be as little as 1.2%.

In a 3-year study by Duke University, in partnership with Information Resources Inc. (IRI), TiVo, and The University of Chicago, a sample of 1,588 households were studied to see, among other things, how they used their DVRs.

What made this study different from other research done on DVR usage was that it measured actual behavior, not self-reported behavior. As you know, self-reported behavior is highly suspect and almost always turns out be inaccurate.

According to Duke, the results of the study "...astonished the researchers."

One of the key findings of the study was that 95% of the time people with DVRs were watching live TV. Only 5% of the time were they watching time-shifted TV.

If this is true, the number of total spots being missed as a result of ad-skipping is ridiculously small.  Here's the calculation:

(Homes with DVRs)  x ( Frequency of Timeshifting)  = (Total Programming Shifted)

                                                      35% x 5%  = 1.7%
                                                                 then
         (Total Programming Shifted) x (Incidence of Ad Skipping) = (Percent of Spots Missed)
                                                      1.7% x .70 = 1.2%

Let me explain in simple terms in case any art directors are reading this.

About 35% of households have DVRs. If they're time shifting 5% of the time, then the total amount of programming being time shifted is 1.7% (5% of 35%.) If they skip ads while time shifting 70% of the time, then the total percent of spots being missed is 1.2% (70% of 1.7%.)

Now remember, TiVo was first introduced in 1998. While all the wailing and panic about DVRs has been going on, TV viewership has increased. As a matter of fact, according to Nielsen, TV viewership has increased 21% since 1998.

So, if the Duke study is correct, here's where we stand 12 years after the introduction of TiVo. DVRs are causing people to miss 1.2% of TV ads. Meanwhile, greater viewership is causing them to watch 21% more TV ads.

The positive effect of more viewing is almost 20 times the negative effect of ad skipping.

Why does no one report this?

Later this week in "The Amazing, Invisible TiVo Effect, Part 2" we'll talk about what effect the DVR is having on consumer purchasing behavior.

Friday Is My Day

Okay, But What Will The Fourth Half Be?
At some big Google supergeek festival yesterday, Master of the Universe Sergey Brin said he wants Google to become the "third half of your brain."

More Eco-Scammers
Last week we wrote a post called The Eco-Marketing Scam about the hypocrisy of "green" corporations. Well, they're not alone. Our civic leaders are apparently equally capable of eco-hypocrisy.

While on a trip to Detroit last week to promote green jobs, Jesse Jackson’s car was stolen and stripped of its wheels. His car? A Cadillac Escalade SUV.

Ready? Three...Two...One...Duh
 From Forbes.com,

"Anita Elberse teaches marketing at the Harvard Business School, and is interested in how the Web is changing the ways companies reach customers... It turns out that things are changing less than is commonly believed. The new world of social media may be a lot like the old world, if not more so...

The correlation between online trailers that were popular and the movies or games with the biggest budgets was very strong, Elberse found. In effect, the videos that got watched the most on the Internet are those that bought their popularity through traditional offline advertising, especially on TV. "

Hmm, seems like I've heard that somewhere before...

Nitpicking As A Lifestyle
Every once in a while I get an email from someone asking me to publish my whole blog post via rss feed rather than just the first few sentences.

Is it too much freaking trouble to click your damn mouse? Is that too much of a freaking burden? Am I being too demanding?

I spend hours (okay, minutes) every day dreaming up stupid crap to keep you entertained and what do I get for it? Diddly. Nada. Bupkis. The only satisfaction is watching the numbers pile up on Statcounter. And if you don't click, I don't get numbers. So quit complaining and click your goddamn mouse.

By the way, what are nits?

Yet Another Crank Theory

If you've been alive more than 45 minutes you've probably noticed something -- people do really stupid shit.

I don't mean stupid like misspelling February. I mean stupid like shooting meth, or piercing their eyelids, or watching Entertainment Tonight. The kind of stupid that can kill you or turn you into a zombie.

If you look deeply enough into any one person's life, I'm pretty sure you can find something stupidly destructive they're doing.

The question is, why?

I guess Freud would say it has something to do with penises or the absence thereof.

But I have a different opinion. I have a crank theory about all this.

I think it's about boredom.

I think people will do anything to avoid boredom -- they'll jump out of airplanes, they'll wrestle alligators, they'll go to social media conferences.

It doesn't matter how stupid it is, if it relieves or impedes boredom, people will do it.

It's the only explanation I can come up with for line dancing and rock climbing and golf and Twitter.

I'll finish this later,  I'm bored.