[opendtv] Re: Digital TV.net: Streaming overtakes live viewing in the US
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:07:58 -0400
Regards
Craig
On Aug 20, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note the ambiguity there, however.
That's what I said when you first posted this article, about a paid research
report. Delloitt is a respected company, but like any other "gun for hire,"
their research tends to support what the client is paying for, or what the
target audience for the report wants to hear. I say this having been a "gun
for hire" for many years - you don't get another project if your research tells
the client they are making a mistake.
The question asks how many hours per week the responder spends, watching TV
shows on each type of device. Obviously, if they use devices that ONLY
receive Internet TV, the answer to "use of linear streams" is simple.
And what is that answer Bert?
There are a variety of services that deliver linear streams OTT.
Almost every TVE App.
CBS All Access
Dish Sling
Sony PlayStation Vue
And your beloved wwiTV
But watching on a "TV set" does not automatically mean they are watching
linear streams. Not even close.
Correct. So the report really does not tell us the whole story...
How would I answer that, Craig? How would users of Roku answer it? How would
a user of a "connected TV" answer it?
Who knows. That would depend on the question they were responding to. OBVIOUSLY
the Deloitt survey does not provide any clarity on these and many other
questions, which is why I challenged its findings in the first place, and then
more specifically in my last response.
How would someone recorded shows on a TV answer it?
Same as above, although the content owners and Nielsen consider viewing via a
DVR to be the same as viewing "live when broadcast," for three days. The
content owners want to expand this to seven days.
You should have wondered that without being told to, Craig. I watch most TV
content on my TV. We've discussed these ambiguities many times already.
So this begs an important question Bert: Why do you use ambiguous data to
support your arguments when that data appears to conform to your beliefs? And
why do you continue to argue that this data is proof of your arguments, when it
is clear that it does not support them?
The following is a perfect example of your obsitinence.
Read again, carefully this time. It says clearly:
"Streaming content has overtaken live programming as 'the viewing
method-of-choice' among Americans, according to Deloitte's latest 'Digital
Democracy Survey'."
This is unambiguous,
And it is clearly WRONG.
No, Craig. You are simply not being rigorous enough to understand what's
going on. You glommed onto the wrong question from the Deloitte survey.
It says that 53% of TV today is viewed online, and 56% of movies.
"56% of US consumers now stream movies and 53% stream TV,
compared to 45% who prefer to watch TV programs live."
Pretty clear. It is explaining to you, Craig, that live viewing
only accounts for 45%. That last phrase, "compared to ... ,"
made it clear what they mean.
All of these data points are for the Trailing Millennial group
Bert.
Not true, Craig.
Not true? Look at the slide from the Deliott report I provided Bert.
They separated the millennials from the overall population.
They did more than that Bert. They divided this demographic into two parts and
the rest of the population into three parts, except for those younger than 15,
for which they did not provide any data at all. But they provided data for all
five of the demographics they measured, and the average for the total.
So you, like the article that you posted take one set of data out of the entire
report, and try to claim that it represents the entire universe:
"Streaming content has overtaken live programming as 'the viewing
method-of-choice' among Americans, according to Deloitte's latest 'Digital
Democracy Survey'."
It is absolutely clear that the Digital Democracy Survey DOES NOT say this.
This is just another example of cherry picking data to create a false
impression.
And what's more, your other survey, the one that shows 41% watching online
for the UK, is not that far off. I have no trouble believing that in the US,
a few more people, percentagewise, watch online TV than in the UK. More
people in the US also used MVPDs, in the past, than in the UK. There's no
reason to expect our two online viewing stats to be identical. Hardly likely.
Correct. Survey methodology must always be taken to into consideration, not to
mention who is paying for the survey. As the old cliche' goes (from Wiki):
Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power
of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is
also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an
opponent's point.
You are so desperate to prove something that you grasp at the
longest straw...
Craig, you are simply following your old habits. You argue for political
motives, even if it means inventing facts, so you end up being invariably
wrong. This happens all the time. Why should it be different for this? Do we
need to go through how many times, and on how many different topics, this has
happened? Try the truth, not a political agenda, please.
Good advice. Please take it.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: