The Sternberg Report

Nielsen Alternative Audience Measurement Not Ready for Primetime (and may never be) 2/23

When it comes to national television measurement used for the buying and selling of commercial time, Nielsen is an industry-mandated monopoly.  While potential competitors have periodically emerged, they failed to sustain enough support to survive – not necessarily because Nielsen did anything to impede them, but because advertisers and networks have been unwilling to pay for multiple sources to provide similar national TV audience data.

While there have been occasional calls for change, the industry’s unwillingness to support any real competition to Nielsen, along with networks and media agencies continuing to sign long-term Nielsen contracts, make the status quo is hard to budge.

Why Alternatives to Nielsen Have Failed to Sustain Support

There have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by other companies to compete with Nielsen, both on a national and local level.  The most common result has been occasionally pressuring Nielsen to make improvements to its own methodology and increase its sample size.

Here’s a brief look at the most notable attempts to compete with Nielsen.

• 1985: After more than 30 years of being essentially unchallenged in the national TV audience measurement arena, British company AGB entered the game and posed the first real threat to Nielsen’s dominance.  It had been using something called people meters in Europe, and saw an opportunity to expand into the U.S. market.  AGB had the advantage of actually using a better methodology than Nielsen’s antiquated meter/diary approach. 

AGB spent nearly two years testing its people meter in Boston before trying to roll it out nationally.  Nielsen responded by launching its own people meter, and increased its sample from 1,200 to 2,000 homes (to match the size of AGB’s sample).  The following year Nielsen increased its sample to 4,000.  As a result, AGB failed to sustain industry support and ceased its U.S. operation in 1988.  The main problem was that ad agencies were not willing to pay for two identical national measurement services, and most of the networks were not willing to support a new ratings system that did not report higher numbers than Nielsen (I believe at the time only CBS and MTV were willing to go forward).

• 1987: D. Percy & Co. developed a passive meter, which used a heat-sensitive, infrared device to detect when someone was in front of the television set and when someone left the room.  But when people found out that the heat sensors could be thrown off by the presence of a large dog, jokes ensued, and any potential support fizzled.  Nielsen announced its own plans to develop a passive meter, which never went beyond the testing phase.

• 1991: Arbitron’s ScanAmerica was way ahead of its time as it tried to marry TV viewing to product usage (sample participants were asked to run a “scanner wand” over the product code on each store-bought item).  Single-source data was considered the holy grail at the time, and this approach seemed to be what advertisers had been seeking.  But a lack of belief in the methodology, the limited number of “scannable” items,  and an unwillingness to invest in an unproven system in a faltering economy, resulted in ScanAmerica shutting down only a year after being introduced.  Had ScanAmerica come along a few years later, when the economy was back on track and other viewing sources were cutting into network ratings, it might have received more interest.    

• 1993: Arbitron, which had been competing with Nielsen for four decades in collecting local TV ratings (in roughly 200 markets), canceled the service.  Local stations, which had been forced to subscribe to both Nielsen and Arbitron to accommodate advertisers and their agencies, who were more or less equally divided among the two services, were under increasing economic pressure from cable and other competition.  It no longer made financial sense for them to support two essentially identical rating systems.  Nielsen, which already had a lock on national TV measurement, won the day.  Nielsen acquired Arbitron (renamed Nielsen Audio) in 2013.

• 1993: The broadcast networks tried to develop a rival rating service, SMART (System for Measuring and Reporting Television), with a new people meter provided by Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI).  But they couldn’t get the necessary ad-agency support and it never got beyond the “media lab” stage (I thought at the time SRI did great work and provided valuable insights).  It folded in 1997. 

• 2007: erinMedia’s plan to launch a new national ratings system to collect and process viewing data from set-top boxes was derailed when Nielsen announced it was forming a new unit called DigitalPlus to essentially do the same thing (which caused erinMedia’s funding to disappear).  In 2005, erinMedia had filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Nielsen Media, which was confidentially settled in 2008.

• ComScore, which merged with Rentrak in 2016, stands as the only real competition to Nielsen – primarily with local TV stations. Most major media agencies, networks, station groups, and streaming services subscribe to some level of ComScore data. 

So, when it comes to national television audience measurement, Nielsen remains a virtual monopoly, albeit an industry-mandated one.  Nielsen ensures its monopoly status, with its clients’ approval, by continually signing long-term staggered contracts with networks and media agencies.  This means any fledgling measurement company cannot actually replace Nielsen, but must operate side-by-side (at least for several years).  Since the industry has long been loath to support two essentially identical rating services, particularly for national currency measurement, Nielsen has continued to operate largely unopposed.

When Nielsen Has Been Forced to Improve TV Measurement

There have be only two instances, more than 20 years apart, when Nielsen was forced to overhaul how it reported television audiences – in 1987, when the switch was made from the antiquated household meter/diary system to national people meters, and in 2009, when DVRs and time-shifted viewing led to the shift from program ratings to average commercial-minute ratings (C3).

• In 1985, when AGB, which had been people meters in the UK, tried to introduce them into the U.S. market, this represented the first time a real threat to Nielsen’s dominance emerged. Even Nielsen had to admit that this new electronic measurement system was far superior to its own meter/diary system, which had considerable human bias attached to it – the highest rated networks and programs, as well as shows airing multiple times per week (daytime, early morning, evening news, late night, syndication) benefited when people manually filled out diaries at the end of each week.  Recall tends to favor the most popular and longer-duration programming.  Nielsen was forced to develop its own people meter system.

• In 2007, commercial avoidance through fast-forwarding had become one of the biggest advertiser concerns. DVR penetration among U.S. TV homes hit 20%, and measuring DVR playback and delayed viewing was now a priority.  Virtually every study and survey ever done indicated that anywhere between 70% and 80% of VCR or DVR playback involved fast-forwarding through commercials.  But there was no actual Nielsen data to prove it, and Nielsen’s national people-meter sample had just started including DVR homes.  Nielsen was forced to report DVR playback (something it was never able to do with VCRs), which led to C3 (average commercial minute ratings up to three days after the original broadcast).

How these two fundamental changes were implemented shows how much the industry’s priorities have changed over time – the speed of change in the access to video content and in consumer behavior has caused good research to take a back seat to rushing new products to market.

There was a time when any changes to audience measurement needed to undergo extensive vetting before the industry would consider implementing them.  People meters were evaluated by industry committees for nearly three years – including a full year of side-by-side data to compare it with the old meter/diary method – before agencies and networks decided to use it as marketplace currency.

Before switching from average program ratings to C3, however, little research was done into the methodology for measuring average commercial minutes.  This was the first time that marketplace business concerns overrode the necessity for validating research methodology.  It is also the moment that Nielsen shifted away from being a pure research company – at the following year’s national client meeting, Nielsen actually proclaimed that getting a product to market was now more important than validating the research beforehand.

Does Anyone Really Want More Accurate TV Audience Measurement?

The major impediment to improved audience measurement is that despite claims to the contrary, neither buyers nor sellers have traditionally wanted more accurate audience measurement.  Sellers want higher ratings (so they can charge more for advertising) and buyers want stability (so they can project future performance).  More accurate audience data is conducive to neither.

• Sellers want higher ratings – you never hear any network complain that Nielsen is overcounting their audience (although for years it did).  But every time I can recall reported television usage or network ratings declining suddenly, or for no reason anyone can pinpoint, they blame Nielsen and call for change.  There’s a reason some networks pushed so hard for viewing in bars and restaurants to be included in currency measurement?  Anyone who knows anything about viewing habits or audience measurement knows how absurd it is to think more than a small fraction of people in bars or restaurants watch and hear commercials.  It’s all about higher reported ratings.  When Nielsen was unable to report VCR playback, on the other hand, the networks were happy to continue using the artificially inflated numbers Nielsen reported (for about 20 years, until DVRs overrode the need to properly measure VCRs).

Any new measurement system does not provide higher broadcast network ratings than Nielsen, was not able to sustain major media company support.  Today, however, with the major media companies owning linear and streaming platforms, losing broadcast viewers but gaining more viewers elsewhere may be more palatable.

• Buyers want stability – accuracy is fine, but stability is required to be able to project future performance. Anyone who was in a media agency research group when the industry switched over to buying and selling based on C3 remembers the chaos that ensued during the upfront and for much of that year.  There’s a reason that what was supposed to be a “one-year band-aid” is still being used 13 years later.  Moving to more accurate commercial measurement would require not only additional staff, but would result in significantly less stable and projectable ratings.

Back in the days when there were relatively few viewing options, and most networks started and ended their seasons at the same time, there actually was a degree of stability to people’s viewing habits.  Not so today.  Traditional TV seasons, with new series debuting in the Fall and Spring, might still exist for the broadcast networks, but not for other platforms (or for viewers).  Streaming services drop new seasons and new shows throughout the year, whenever they are ready, and not always at the same time as previous seasons. 

Some streamers drop entire seasons at once, some two or three episodes before switching to weekly, and others use the broadcast network once-a-week model.  When a new season of Stranger Things, or a new show like Squid Games or The Recruit premieres, for example, my viewing habits immediately change.  I’ll binge a few episodes a night, and DVR my regular linear shows (which I’ll binge two or three weeks later).  My viewing is not nearly as stable or predictable as it was 10 years ago, and much of my viewing would not be captured by Nielsen’s C3 (or C7) measurement.

• And let’s not forget that agencies do not want to incur dramatically increased costs for improved ratings systems, or multiple currencies that would require significant spending for new or custom databases (and staff) without increasing their revenue.

Can Samples Still Adequately Measure the TV Universe?

The whole purpose of a sample is to be representative of the total U.S., with the idea that you and your demographic cohorts have similar viewing habits.  Your cohorts are determined based on characteristics that Nielsen has determined impact viewing behavior – such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, presence of children, income, education, language spoken at home, etc.  Also important is whether or not you have cable/satellite/telco (i.e., pay TV services) or DVRs.

In the past, broad platform mattered more than individual platform.  In other words, whether or not you have cable does not require the sample being representative of every cable system, because that does not significantly affect viewing choices or behavior.  Nor is it important to know what type of DVR you have, since that will not substantially impact your delayed viewing, or how much you fast-forward through commercials. 

Whether or not you subscribe to streaming services, however, is not the same.  If you only have Netflix, the programming available to you, and your actual viewing habits, will be dramatically different than if you only subscribe to Paramount+.  Likewise, if you bundle Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, and add HBO Max, your viewing habits will be different than if you have Netflix, Prime Video, Peacock, and Apple TV+.  And there won’t just be differences in what you stream, there will be significant differences in your linear TV viewing as well.  The only way to have a meaningful television sample, is to accurately represent the total U.S. based on every possible combination of streaming service subscriptions and cable/satellite/telco.  This means that the make-up of Nielsen’s national and local samples could need to change dramatically every year or two.  The days when all Nielsen needed to worry about was cable and DVR penetration are gone forever.

But even if you are able to put together a sample that keeps up with the shifting combinations of platform usage, it won’t necessarily provide significantly more accurate data.  This is primarily because as more and more niche programming becomes available on more and more platforms, it is quite likely that demographic cohorts no longer have similar viewing patterns.

Nielsen still can’t accurately measure streaming, and won’t be able to until its sample reflects individual streaming service penetration and until it can measure viewing on all platforms and devices.  Netflix’s two minutes of viewing data is meaningless gibberish that tells us nothing about how many viewers are actually watching anything.  The press should stop repeating (as opposed to reporting) these bogus numbers provided by streaming services.  Is Squid Game really Netflix’s most popular series ever?  Maybe.  If ABC said 50 million people watched Grey’s Anatomy this month without any third-party verification, I doubt anyone would report it as a real number.  In reality, no reported streaming data is anywhere near being comparable to linear ratings reported by Nielsen or ComScore.

The fact that Nielsen only reports on streaming titles from Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, and Disney+ (it recently AppleTV+), and only measures streaming on a TV set, is an ongoing embarrassment.  Netflix has repeatedly said that Nielsen’s limited reported streaming data is “not even close” to the actual numbers. 

There are actually more high-quality shows on television than ever before.  The most popular ones seem to be on streaming services.  It seems that way because the press headlines, social media chatter, and industry “buzz” tell us so.  Are Stranger Things or Squid Game really more popular than NCIS or Chicago Fire?  Of course not.  It’s just that we’re not used to evaluating linear TV shows based on time spent viewing or combining multiple sources of their viewing (because advertising isn’t bought and sold that way).   

In reality, we have no idea how many people (or who) are watching any individual streaming show or platform.  Whatever limited data is currently provided by streamers is not using the same metrics as Nielsen (or one another).  So, we really do not have any valid ongoing comparisons between linear TV viewing and streaming using the same metrics or time frame.  And any comparisons we do get compare minutes of total viewing among shows where some have eight episodes available to stream to others that have more than 100 episodes available.  We do know that broadcast ratings tend to decline every season.  Streaming series may as well, but we just don’t see the data.   

Will New Vendors and a Joint Industry Committee Change Anything?

A number of advertisers, media agencies, and industry trade organizations joined NBCUniversal’s Measurement Innovation Forum, which is designed to evaluate current audience measurement methodology and come up with alternatives to Nielsen.  NBCU sent out a request for proposal (RFP) to more than 50 companies (including Nielsen) to help “build a new measurement ecosystem for us that reflects the future.”  Ironically, this was not in response to the basic flaws in current C3 measurement, but rather was spurred by the problems Nielsen encountered maintaining its national people meter sample during the pandemic – which resulted in reported network audience declines that seemed illogical to say the least.  Again, media companies only seek action when they believe reported ratings are too low, not when they believe they are inaccurate.

Tests of potential alternatives to Nielsen (such as ComScore, iSpot.tv, Samba TV, VideoAmp, Xandr, and LiveRamp) have reportedly not yielded the results the industry is looking for.  Different companies have been providing substantially different numbers from Nielsen and from one another.  And even the same suppliers have sometimes produced widely different numbers from one week to the next.  As I’ve already mentioned, in today’s media world, currently structured samples (and data modeling) are woefully inadequate in measuring the universe of TV viewers, so significant disparity in data produced by different samples should not surprise anyone.

If data provided by these different companies continue to dramatically diverge from one another, none is likely to be seen as a valid alternative to Nielsen as marketplace currency.

Obviously, a giant set-top sample in the range of tens of millions would be best, but it would still need to be representative of the country at large based on age, income, ethnicity, media device ownership, streaming subscriptions, etc.  But even that would significantly under-report viewing sources with a large amount of over-the-air only homes, and would still need a Nielsen-type panel to ascribe demographic data to these homes.  But if I had faith that the household sample was indeed representative of the country at large, I would have no problem with a panel for demos.

Now five major media companies (NBCUniversal, Paramount Global, Fox, TelevisaUnivision, and Warner Bros. Discovery) along with the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB) are forming a “joint industry” committee to create standards for audience measurement.  Notably missing from this alliance (at the moment) is Disney (which owns ABC and ESPN as well as Disney+ and Hulu). 

Since it can’t really be called a joint industry committee if it only consists of sellers, they recently announced that media agencies have been invited to join, or as they phrased it,  “We believe that if we’re going to realize our collective ambitions of ensuring accurate cross-platform solutions for measuring premium video are available, we cannot do it alone. We want your feedback as we establish new standards for the future.”  I find the use of the word “feedback” rather than “participation” interesting, to say the least.

  

There are just three times I can recall advertisers, media companies (sellers) and media agencies (buyers) in the same room discussing how to improve TV/video audience measurement.  Even prior to the switchover to people meters, Nielsen held separate meetings among researchers from the networks and ad agencies – and neither the network salespeople or agency buyers were present.

• In 2005, the Council For Research Excellence (CRE) was formed (I was privileged to be one of its founding members). The CRE initially consisted of around 40 top industry researchers, representing advertisers, networks, local station groups, syndicators, and media agencies.  While the CRE did conduct some landmark research, it did not lead to any substantial changes in Nielsen’s measurement methodology – not really surprising, since the “independent” Council’s research was funded by Nielsen (roughly $3.5 million per year).  For those who don’t remember or weren’t around at the time, the CRE was formed following Senate hearings on Nielsen’s purported measurement bias, so Nielsen could avoid the federal government becoming involved in overseeing national TV audience measurement.  Lawyers were present at many of our early meetings because the potential for collusion between buyers and sellers was a major concern.  Nielsen pulled its funding in 2017.

• In 2009, television buyers, sellers, and researchers convened for a meeting with top Nielsen executives to discuss how to measure television viewing via DVRs.  This was the first time top sales people and buyers were included in this type of meeting.  Measuring delayed viewing had become a major concern among advertisers (Nielsen had just started including DVR homes in its national sample).  There was urgency to arrive at a solution before the 2009 upfront.  Advertisers and agencies, of course, only wanted live viewing reported as marketplace currency, while the networks wanted a full week of delayed viewing (C7) reported.  C3 was the compromise. 

• A few years later, the ANA convened a select group of advertisers, sellers, buyers, and researchers to discuss replacing Nielsen’s C3 measurement with true commercial ratings. This meeting ended with Nielsen, in its typical arrogance, basically telling us they heard our concerns, but had no intentions of shifting away from C3 anytime soon (this was 10 years ago).

Only extremely urgent marketplace forces and advertiser concerns have led to any real audience measurement improvement.  Measuring streaming may qualify as one of those times – particularly with Netflix and Disney+ joining other streamers in offering an advertiser-supported tier.  Although given that the major media companies own several of the major streamers (Disney+, HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock, Hulu), I don’t see why they can’t provide combined actual viewing data in the same format to advertisers – unless, of course, they realize the data will not be as big as they are currently able to lead people to believe they are by releasing nonsensical data such as billions of minutes viewed.

What the Industry Needs to Do to Improve TV Audience Measurement

It’s interesting that even with all the criticism leveled at Nielsen, the company is still used as the base to compare any new potential vendors to gauge the validity their reported ratings.  So, if another company reports data that is 30% higher or lower then Nielsen’s, it is immediately thought to be “wrong.”  But we really have no idea if this is the case.

In addition to re-thinking sample construction, the first thing that needs to be done is to get a handle on what current rating services can and cannot accurately measure.  While this might sound logical and simple, I can’t remember this ever being done (outside of the old telephone coincidental days).  Even when the industry took the major step of moving to average commercial minute measurement (C3) in 2009, there was precious little analysis done into the methodology Nielsen uses to calculate these ratings.

The only good attempt to get some of these answers was in the CRE’s landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study in 2007-08.  I was co-Chair of the CRE’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee, which commissioned the study.  One of the lesser-known findings was that Nielsen’s overall usage levels of households and broad demographic segments, such as total viewers and adults 18-49 were remarkably similar to the observed viewing behavior in our sample.  Once you started to look at narrower age groups, however, the reported Nielsen data started to stray significantly from the observed viewing data.  And this was just overall TV usage levels, not individual program ratings (and was 15 years ago, when video viewing was not nearly as splintered as it is today).  DVR penetration was barely 20% of the U.S., and there were no streaming services.  At the time, I suggested we replicate the study every five years, but that never happened – primarily because it was so expensive, and the CRE (and Nielsen) had other priorities.

It is actually not that difficult to figure out how accurate current TV measurement is.  I bring this up every time I write on this topic.  When I was on the CRE, I proposed a methodology for gauging how accurate Nielsen was at measuring an increasingly fragmented video viewing environment.  Nielsen didn’t want to have anything to do with it then, but the industry should consider it now. 

Here’s all you need to do: 

• Develop a sample of 100 or so of the top researchers in the industry (buyers, sellers, advertisers), who are adept at detailed work and understand how audience measurement works. Nielsen, ComScore (and others) would meter their TVs, DVRs, smartphones, computers (desktops, laptops, tablets) and any other video viewing capable devices they own.  They would also be given portable meters to measure their exposure to out-of-home video and audio.  Let’s see how many actual people are actually watching the commercials in bars and restaurants compared to what the portable devices pick up as “exposure.”

• Set up several different viewing scenarios for what and how each participant will view video content and commercials during a single day (6am-1am), which would include both live viewing and viewing via DVRs (with normal fast-forwarding, pausing, etc.).

• Participants log in their video and commercial exposure and viewing (down to the second).

• Compare their actual viewing to what the meters report. We would then be able to see and address weaknesses in audience measurement, see how much real-world viewing is not being captured by current methodology, and gauge the differences between such things as exposure (the opportunity to view) and actual viewing, and between individual commercial viewing and average commercia minutes.

Not only will this provide, for the first time, a look at how accurate reported ratings are, but it will also tell us exactly where improvements to audience measurement need to be made (which was the original but unfulfilled purpose of the CRE).  The project could be overseen by a group of retired research executives or some well-respected company with no skin in the game.

Until something like this is done, all this talk will be little more than the sellers trying to get higher ratings, or moving away from just measuring eyeballs to the even more difficult to measure behavioral and attentiveness data (which everyone has been discussing for years).  Most attentiveness data I’ve seen over the years have been gibberish.  There has always been a tendency to start focusing on the next shiny object before actually fixing what is still the biggest piece of the pie – in-home viewing to television sets.  But if we don’t get that right, measuring real cross-platform viewing will remain out of reach.

So Whats Next?

That’s a good question.  I doubt whether the industry will follow my proposal to discover the actual weaknesses in current audience measurement techniques.  That would require the expensive, time-consuming process of fixing them, and not necessarily supply the answers anyone wants to deal with.  So, if past is prologue, we’ll probably see more talk and several new proposals on how to “better” measure video and cross-platform viewing.  New companies will come in with innovative techniques for measuring the video landscape (or portions of it), but won’t get the funding they need to go through the extended scrutiny the industry will require.  Nielsen will be forced to make some changes to how it operates.  When the next upfront rolls around, most everyone will likely still be using Nielsen as their primary national marketplace currency.

If the media conglomerates sign long-term contracts with Nielsen during the next round, we’ll know most of this was just talk.  If they sign one-year deals, making Nielsen (and others) continually prove themselves, then maybe real change will happen.

Forget Boomers, Millennials, or Alphabets - It's Your Media Generation That Counts

Generations have traditionally been defined in roughly 15-20-year increments.  While there is some disagreement on post-Baby-Boomer exact start and end years, these are generally accepted time frames for the seven living generations (with their respective born dates in parenthesis):

• The G.I. Generation (1901-1926)
• The Silent Generation (1927-1945)
• Baby Boomers (1946-1964)
• Baby Busters/Generation X (1965-1980)
• Millennials/Generation Y (1981-1995)
• Generation Z (1996-2012)
• Generation Alpha (2013-2025 )

Hallmark of Generations – Shared Experiences

People in the same generation traditionally have similar collective experiences, and as they age, tend to demonstrate similarities in attitudes and how they relate to the world around them – and until about 15 or so years ago, how they related to media as well.

Pre-Generation Z (born 1996-2012), most people obtained access to the same media distribution systems, same channels, same TV shows, and same media devices.  And when they watched specific television series, they did so at the same time (if they were in the same time zone).  This was true both within and across generations.  TV viewing was largely a shared experience.

While there were always early adopters of new technology, people within the same generation tended to get and ultimately use the same stuff.  Just as significant, people in previous generations tended to eventually get them as well.  If you got cable or satellite (which 90% of U.S. TV households eventually did), you received about the same number of channels as everyone else.  If you purchased a VCR (which 90% of U.S. TV households eventually did) or a DVD player (which 80% of households did), you had the same access to time-shifted viewing of the same series and renting/buying the same movies or TV shows as most other people.

This not only made media measurement easier, but it made predicting future media usage easier as well.  If you know that 80-90% of consumers will eventually get something, estimating the eventual impact on viewing patterns is reasonably straightforward.

The Media Landscape Evolves:  From Gradual to Constant Change

Over the past 20 years, the media landscape has been in a constant state of change (some might say chaos).  How people use and relate to media, video, and individual TV shows is largely dependent on the expanding array of media devices and subscription video platforms they can access – which is no longer the same across generations or even among members of the same generation.

Until the early 2000s, the pace of change was relatively slow, enabling cumbersome media measurement conglomerates to trudge along with serviceable audience measurement.  As cohesive groups of people aged, their media habits were similar and largely predictable.

It’s hard to imagine now, but before people meters debuted in 1987, Nielsen’s national television sample was only 1,200 homes, and demographic data was only available 36 weeks of the year.  In a three-network, one-screen, single platform, 15-channel, live-viewing world, this was acceptable.  Gaps in the information could be easily estimated based on the surrounding weeks of data.

Here’s a brief look at how the video media landscape has evolved since then:

• During the late 1980s, VCRs started to become prevalent, eventually being owned by 90% of U.S. TV households. Watching pre-recorded videocassettes became the first major new widespread use of the television set.  This contributed to TV audience declines on Saturday nights (which was now the biggest movie rental night).  As a result, the broadcast networks gave up on original scripted series on the night (once the home to major network hits such as All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Mary Tyler Moore, The Love Boat, and Golden Girls).  The networks subsequently cut back on airing made-for-TV and theatrical movies as well.  Time-shifted viewing, now possible for the first time, was still relatively minor (except for sci-fi series and movies).

• The home VCR became the fastest growing electronic device since television itself, and caused real problems for audience measurement. This was the first chink in Nielsen’s armor, as it had to admit for the first time that it couldn’t measure an element of television viewing.  It was able to capture VCR recording, but playback among individual people remained beyond its scope – so it started ascribing household VCR data to people.

• In 1990, the average home could still only receive 33 channels. Viewing habits remained relatively stable, and aside from VCR usage, there weren’t many major challenges to audience measurement.  As cable television expanded, however, the number of available channels began to rise sharply.  A new phrase, “network erosion,” entered the advertising and media lexicons.

• In the late 1990s, DVRs became a reality, but growth was considerably slower than it had been for VCRs. It would take another decade before DVRs were even in 20 percent of the country, and needed to be addressed in developing television samples for Nielsen’s audience measurement.

• Prior to 2005, changes to the media landscape – what was available to view and how it could be viewed – were gradual. Most people wound up getting the same access to almost everything.  The slow pace of change made predicting consumer television viewing habits relatively simple, and slow-to-change research companies didn’t have to pivot too quickly, nor innovate too often.

• Since then, change has been rapid and constant – from the introduction of Apple’s first video iPod in 2005, to social media led by Facebook and Twitter in 2006, to the first iPhone in 2007, to Netflix and Hulu in 2008/2009, to the first iPad in 2010, to Netflix’s first original scripted streaming hit (House of Cards) in 2013 (there are now more original scripted series on streaming services than all the broadcast networks combined). CBS All Access (now Paramount+) joined the streaming arena in 2017, followed by Disney+ and Apple TV+ in 2019, and HBO Max and Peacock in 2020.  In 2020, only 22% of homes subscribed to four or more streaming services; this rose to 46% just a year later.  Between 2007 and 2015 there were also several generations of digital media devices such as Apple TV (2007), Roku (2008), and Amazon Fire Stick (2014).  In 2022, the average home can receive more than 200 linear TV channels and subscribes to four streaming services.

• Unlike pre-2000, however, everybody isn’t necessarily getting everything anymore. Nearly half of TV households do not have DVRs (despite being available for more than 20 years).  It may never reach two-thirds of the country.  More than 70% of TV households have subscription video on demand (SVOD), up from 45% five years ago.  This could hit 90% in a few years, but the percentage of homes with different combinations of streaming services varies widely (making accurate national audience measurement more complicated than ever).  Multimedia devices and smart TVs are each in more than 70% of TV homes, both up from about 25% five years ago, but a good chunk of the country still doesn’t have any.

• With HBO Max, Disney+, and Netflix all planning lower priced ad-supported tiers, the divide across and within generations between those who receive much of their TV entertainment without commercials and those who get most of their TV shows with ads included, is going to widen – based largely on disposable income.

Re-defining Generations:  Less Cohesion, Narrower Time Frames

When it comes to media usage, broad age groups that make up traditional generations, are no longer as cohesive as they once were.  There is less similarity among members of more recent generations based on what, where, and when they can watch video content.  Just as significant, previous generations are not as quick to use the newest media or technology.  How many eventually do is not as certain as it once was.

Previously cohesive generations are starting to splinter into sub-groups based on media usage dynamics that are significantly more segmented than just a few years ago.  We need to start re-thinking commonly accepted generational labels, not only based on how they use and relate to media, but also their consumer behavior and how they are exposed to and respond to advertising.

The Media Generations

Getting access to something as an adult is quite different from growing up with it.  Most Baby Boomers did not experience substantial change in video media choices or device access until they were adults.  In 1980, when the youngest Boomers were in their 30s, roughly 80 percent of the country did not yet have cable.  In 1985, more than 85 percent of the country did not own a VCR.  Until 1986, there were only three broadcast networks.

The way my 23-year-old son uses and relates to the media landscape is much different from how his 60-something father does.  Rather than growing up in a stable media environment as I did, he has experienced continual change.  He grew up going from flip phones, to blackberries, to smartphones; from no to multiple social media platforms; from VCRs to DVRs to video on demand, to streaming, to Apple TV to streaming sticks; from desktop pc, to laptop, to iPad; from slow internet to high-speed broadband.  In other words, he is from the first generation to grow up constantly navigating new media and platforms, making it easier to adjust to whatever comes next.  My generation expected stability; his expects change and a steady diet of new technology.

Here is how I would break out the media generations (the corresponding standard age-based generations are in parenthesis).  While the first few closely mirror traditional generations, as new technology and media options become more frequent, the number of years making up a media generation narrows.  There are sometimes substantial differences between the first and second half of even the oldest media generations.  There is also some overlap and similarities between the end of one generation and the beginning of the next.

The Pre-TV Generation:  born 1925-1945 (The Silent Generation:  1927-1945)

• Grew up with radio.
• Introduced to television as teens or young adults.
• Most people had one TV per household. Few channels, few choices, no remote control, no end-user technology.
• Families gathered around the console TV set (as they had around the radio).
• Portable small-screen TV was new technology.
• First stop is still tends to be broadcast networks or cable networks that air off-network series.
• They see advertising on television as normal, necessary, and helpful.

 

Major events that affected how they think:

• First half of generation grew up in aftermath of the Great Depression – determined to “save, save, save” so their kids could be better off than they were.
• War generation – first half of generation were teens and young adults during World War II, young adults during Korean conflict; second half of generation were young adults during Vietnam War.
• Teens and young adults during McCarthy Era, start of Cold War, Cuban missile crisis.
• Young adults when JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy were assassinated.

How they relate to the world around them:

• Taught to “be seen and not heard.”
• Clear ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, black hats and white hats.
• Conformity and following the rules were keys to success.
• Hard work, pay your dues, respect for authority. Tended to stay in same jobs for entire career.
• Pre-feminism, traditional nuclear families – most men worked, most women stayed home to raise kids – main jobs for women outside the home were teachers, nurses, and secretaries.
• Institutional racism and anti-semitism.
• People of similar ages tended to be in similar stages of life.
• Avid newspaper readers.
• Musical variety - Big Band, Jazz, Blues, and Swing. Second half of generation introduced to Rock ‘N’ Roll when they were teens or young adults.
• Post WWII prosperity – growth of suburbs, cars as status symbols.

Television was only in 9% of U.S. homes in 1950, 50% in 1954, 90% in 1960.  In 1964 only 3% of homes had color TV, which wouldn’t pass 50% of the U.S. until 1972.  In 1970, only 35% of homes had more than one television set.

In 2022, the Pre-TV Generation is 77-97.

The TV Generation:  born 1946-1969 (Baby Boomers: 1946-1964)

• Global Village – first generation to grow up with television and electronic access to events in opposite ends of the country live as they were happening.
• Grew up with one screen, few choices. Families watched TV together – in early 1970s, All in the Family was the highest rated show on the air among every age group for five straight years.
• Key TV shows they grew up watching (mostly 1^st half in red, mostly 2^nd half in blue):
  • Kids: Howdy Doody (1947-60), Adventures of Superman (1952-58), The Mickey Mouse Club (1955-59), Captain Kangaroo (1955-84), The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle and Friends (1959-64), The Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Hour (1962-71), Underdog (1964-67), Sesame Street (1969-2015), ABC Afterschool Special (1972-97), Mister Rogers Neighborhood (1968-2001). The Electric Company (1971-77), Fat Albert (1972-85), Super Friends (1973-86).
  • Comedies: I Love Lucy (1951-57), Father Knows Best (1954-60), Leave it to Beaver (1957-63), The Andy Griffith Show (1960-68), The Flintstones (1960-66), The Beverly Hillbillies (1962-71), Bewitched (1964-72), I Dream of Jeannie (1965-70), That Girl (1966-71), The Brady Bunch (1969-74), Mary Tyler Moore (1970-77), All in the Family (1971-79), M*A*S*H (1972-83), Happy Days (1974-84), Good Times (1974-79), The Jeffersons (1975-85), Laverne & Shirley (1976-83), The Love Boat (1976-90), Diff’rent Strokes (1978-85), The Facts of Life (1979-88).
  • Dramas: Wagon Train (1957-65), Have Gun, Will Travel (1957-63), The Untouchables (1959-63), Lassie (1954-73), Gunsmoke (1955-75), Bonanza (1959-73), I Spy (1965-68), Star Trek (1966-69), Batman (1966-68), Julia (1968-71), The Mod Squad (1968-73), Room 222 (1969-74), The Waltons (1972-81), The Six Million Dollar Man (1973-78), Little House on the Prairie (1974-83), Charlie’s Angels (1976-81), CHiPs (1977-83), The Incredible Hulk (1977-82), Fantasy Island (1978-84), Dallas (1978-91).
• Programmer control. Could only watch something when a TV station aired it – kids looked forward to annual showings of The Wizard of Oz.
• Teens or young adults during early years of HBO, MTV, and ad-supported cable.
• Young adults when Fox became the fourth broadcast network.
• Young adults when the home VCR became widely available.
• Remote Control was new technology to first half of generation; VCRs to second half.
• They see advertising as a necessary for “free TV.” Fondly remember the classic commercials of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s

Major events that affected how they think:

• Cold War
  • Kids or teens during Cuban missile crisis
  • Bomb shelters
  • Kids do “duck and cover” drills in school
• Kids, teens, or young adults when JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy were assassinated.
• Moon landing. Faith in government. “We can accomplish anything.”
• Civil Rights – violence against Blacks shown on television cause many to pay attention for the first time.
  • Birmingham Sunday (1963) – white supremacist bombing of Baptist church in Alabama kills four young Black girls.
  • TV news accounts of attacks on peaceful Black demonstrators in the South by police using firehoses and dogs against men, women and children, shock the nation and leads to political action and civil rights legislation.
• Beginning and end of Vietnam War and the draft.
  • The Tet Offensive (1968) brings the brutality of war to American screens for the first time. CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” comes out against the war.
  • Kent State shooting (1970). Ohio national guard kills four students and wounds nine others who are peacefully protesting the U.S.’s expanding involvement in Vietnam war.
  • Bombings in U.S. by anti-war activists, such as The Weather Underground.
• Kids, teens, and young adults have first exposure to international terrorism – 1972 Munich Summer Olympics, Iranian hostage crisis (1979), 1970s airline hijackings.
• Women’s Rights movement in the 1970s.
  • Title IX passes in 1972, prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives funding from the federal government.
• Kids, teens, or young adults during Watergate. Nixon becomes first President to resign.  Faith in government wanes.
• Young adults when
  • The AIDS epidemic struck.
  • The Cold War ended and Berlin Wall fell.

How they relate to the world around them:

• Post-World War II baby boom and middle class.
• Started the American Youth culture – first generation to have advertisers, media, and entertainment industry market specifically to kids, teens, and twenty-somethings on a widespread basis. They are used to being the center of attention.
• People of a certain age were in similar life-stages – kids of a certain age had parents in a relatively narrow age range.
• Bullying a normal part of growing up. If you’re not good enough you don’t play.  Toughen up.  Boys don’t cry.  Girls don’t play “boy’s sports.”
• Many are first generation in their families to graduate from college.
• Musical variety – Folk, Rock ‘N’ Roll, R&B, Motown, Country, Disco, Heavy Metal, Punk Rock.
  • 1950s – Rock ‘N’ Roll
  • 1960s – British invasion (Beatles on Ed Sullivan); Protest music (Bob Dylan)
  • 1970s – Classic Rock; Disco (Saturday Night Fever); Punk (CBGB)
• From free love, the pill, and sexual revolution in their teens and early 20s to AIDS and safe sex in their late 20s, 30s, or 40s.
• First generation to see retirement as a new beginning rather than nearing the end.

Consumer Behavior:

• Looks for convenience and service.
  • Less likely than subsequent generations to see shopping as relaxing.
  • More disposable income than other generations means convenience more important than searching for bargains.
  • Likes brick-and-mortar because of desire for customer service, but will often research products online before going out to buy. They will purchase certain products online if they are not readily available in-store.
  • Most likely generation to stop shopping at a store or chain if they do not like the customer service or have a bad experience with a salesperson.
  • Less likely than subsequent generations to have purchases influenced by social media or recommendations from friends and family. More likely to be impacted by advertising and reported popularity of specific brands.

Television is in 50% of U.S. homes in 1954, 90% in 1960.  Cable – 12% in 1975, 20% in 1980, 43% in 1985.  In 1970, only one-third of homes only had more than one TV set; by 1980, half of homes had more than one.  In 1985, only 29% of homes had remote control; this rose to 77% by 1990.  VCR penetration in the U.S. was just 1% in 1980, 14% in 1985, and 66% in 1990.

In 2022, the TV Generation is 53-76.

The MTV Generation:  born 1970-1984 (Gen. X: 1965-1980)

• First generation to grow up with remote control, more than three broadcast networks (kids or teens when Fox became the fourth network), and cable (ad-supported and pay).
• Second half of generation was first group to have kids TV programming beyond Saturday Morning and weekday afternoon syndication.
• First generation of kids to grow up with Sesame Street and Mister Rogers.
• Key TV shows they grew up watching (mostly 1^st half in red, mostly second half in blue):
  • Kids: Captain Kangaroo (1955-84), Sesame Street (1969-2015), ABC Afterschool Special (1972-97), Mister Rogers Neighborhood (1968-2001), The Electric Company (1971-77), Fat Albert (1972-85), Super Friends (1973-86), Fraggle Rock (1983-87), Reading Rainbow (1983-2006), Pee Wee Herman Show (1986-90), Saved by the Bell (1989-93), Rugrats (1991-2004), All That (1994-2005), Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1990-96), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987-96), Ren & Stimpy (1991-1996), Batman: The Animated Series (1992-95), Barney & Friends (1992-2010), Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers (1993-96), Beavis and Butthead (1993-97).
  • Comedies: Happy Days (1974-84), The Jeffersons (1975-85), Laverne & Shirley (1976-83), The Love Boat (1976-90), Diff’rent Strokes (1978-85), The Facts of Life (1979-88), The Cosby Show (1984-92), Growing Pains (1985-92), Married…With Children (1987-97), A Different World (1987-93), Full House (1987-95), Roseanne (1988-97), The Wonder Years (1988-93), The Simpsons (1989- ), Family Matters (1989-98), The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96), Home Improvement (1991-99), Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper (1992-97), Living Single (1993-98), Friends (1994-2004).
  • Dramas: The Six Million Dollar Man (1973-78), Charlie’s Angels (1976-81), Little House on the Prairie (1974-83), CHiPs (1977-83), The Incredible Hulk (1977-82), Fantasy Island (1978-84), Dallas (1978-91), Fame (1982-87), Knight Rider (1982-86), The A-Team (1983-87), Miami Vice (1984-90), Moonlighting (1985-89), 21 Jump Street (1987-91), Life Goes On (1989-93), Beverly Hills 90210 (1990-2000), Melrose Place (1992-99), The X-Files (1993-2002), Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-97), ER (1994-2009), Party of Five (1994-2000).
• Teens and young adults when MTV launched – first generation to regularly watch their favorite musical groups perform on television.
• First home video game generation:
  • Kids or teens when Nintendo released higher-quality (8-bit graphics) video games – including Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda (1989). Nintendo released the hand-held Game Boy video game device the same year.
  • Sega released its 16-bit Genesis video game console, which included Sonic the Hedgehog (1991). The same year, Nintendo released its 16-bit Super NES console in North America, spurring the first console wars.
  • Sega released Saturn, the first 32-bit console that played games on CD rather than cartridges (1995). Later that year, Sony released its first Playstation.  The following year, Nintendo released its 64-bit cartridge system, Nintendo 64.
• Personal computers, dial-up internet, and VCRs were new technology. Pre-recorded video cassettes, and time-shifted TV viewing were new concepts.
• They see TV advertising as a necessary evil.

Major events that affected how they think:

• Post-Vietnam and Watergate – grew up with less trust in government than previous generations.
• Kids during Iran hostage crisis.
• Kids, teens or young adults during
  • Space shuttle Challenger explosion
  • Fall of Berlin Wall
  • AIDS epidemic (safe-sex generation)
  • Black Monday
  • Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots
• Teens or young adults on 9/11.
• Young adults during the Great Recession.

How they relate to the world around them:

• First generation of kids to have friends’ parents in significantly different life stages.
• Rise of dual-income families, “latch-key kids.” Growth of divorce rates and single-parent households combine to result in kids and teens being more self-reliant and skeptical than previous generations.
• Went from computer-free to computer-savvy.
• Musical variety – Rock, Country, Punk, Grunge, Hip-Hop.
  • 1980s – Punk; New wave
  • Kids, teens, or young adults when Yo MTV Raps debuted
  • 1990s – Gritty, gang-life Hip-Hop/Rap; Grunge
  • 2000s – New, feel-good Hip-Hop
• Sandwich generation – often responsible for simultaneously raising children and caring for aging parents.
• Went from seeing terrorism from afar and relative safety, to seeing it up close and personal.
• Rather than fleeing the nest, many of their kids are coming back home after college.

Consumer Behavior:

• More practical – skeptical about advertising and marketing
  • Tend to thoroughly research products before buying – extensive use of search engines.
  • Influenced by social media and online reviews – less so by hard-sell advertising.
  • This generation is among the heaviest email users, and are the most likely to respond to personalized email offers based on their previous purchases.
  • As with the previous generation, they see in-store quality customer service as important, but are more likely than the previous generation to make online purchases.

Cable is in 56% of U.S. Homes in 1990, 68% in 2000, 85% in 2005.  VCRs – 14% in 1985, 50% in 1988, 66% in 1990, 90% in 2000.  DVRs – 20% in 2008, 38% in 2010.  In 1990, more than one-third of TV homes still had just one television set. 

This is the last cohesive generation, where almost everyone got almost everything.  The VCR was the last universally purchased device for watching video.

In 2022, the MTV Generation is 38-52.

The Multi-Channel Generation:  born 1985-1997 (Millennials/Generation Y: 1981-1995) 

• First generation to grow up with
  • The internet
  • High-quality console and hand-held video games
  • 24-hour cable news – news bias
  • Social media
  • Downloadable music – Spotify, Apple
  • Time-shifted TV viewing
• Original scripted series no longer exclusive to the broadcast networks. Ad-supported cable networks, led by AMC, FX, TNT, and USA, start airing original scripted programming.  Premium cable networks, such as HBO, Showtime, and Starz air scripted shows too edgy for ad-supported TV.
• First generation with no concept of “least objectionable programming.”
• Key TV shows they grew up watching (mostly 1^st half in red, mostly 2^nd half in blue):
  • Kids: Sesame Street (1969-2015), ABC Afterschool Special (1972-97), Mister Rogers Neighborhood (1968-2001), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987-96), Saved by the Bell (1989-93), Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1990-96), Rugrats (1991-2004), Ren & Stimpy (1991-1996), Batman: The Animated Series (1992-95), Barney & Friends (1992-2010), Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers (1993-96), Beavis and Butthead (1993-97), All That (1994-2005), Blue’s Clues (1996-2006), Teletubbies (1997-2001), Rolie Polie Olie (1998-2007), SpongeBob SquarePants (1999- ), Pokemon (1999-2006), Dora the Explorer (2000-19), The Fairly OddParents (2001-17).
  • Comedies: Cosby Show (1984-92), Growing Pains (1985-92), Married…With Children (1987-97), A Different World (1987-93), Full House (1987-95), Roseanne (1988-97), Wonder Years (1988-93), The Simpsons (1989- ), Family Matters (1989-98), The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96), Home Improvement (1991-99), Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper (1992-97), Living Single (1993-98), Friends (1994-2004), Sabrina the Teenage Witch (1996-2003), King of the Hill (1997-2010), That 70s Show (1998-2006), Family Guy (1999- ), Malcolm in the Middle (2000-06), Girlfriends (2000-08).
  • Dramas: 21 Jump Street (1987-91), Life Goes On (1989-93), Beverly Hills 90210 (1990-2000), Melrose Place (1992-99), The X-Files (1993-2002), Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-97), ER (1994-2009), Party of Five (1994-2000), Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997-2003), Dawson’s Creek (1998-2003), Felicity (1998-2002), Gilmore Girls (2000-07), Smallville (2001-11), One Tree Hill (2003-12), Supernatural (2005-20), Gossip Girl (2007-12), The Vampire Diaries (2009-17), Glee (2009-15), The Walking Dead (2010- ), Pretty Little Liars (2010-17).
• MTV still influential – premiere of The Real World in 1992.
• Kids and teens during launch and run of WB and UPN (1995-2006). UPN is the first broadcast network providing a voice to a new generation of Black storytellers with TV shows containing largely Black casts.
• Video game expansion
  • Nintendo DS released in 2004
  • Modern age of high-definition gaming begins in 2005-06 with release of Sony’s Playstation 3, Microsoft’s Xbox 360, and Nintendo’s Wii.
• Teens and young adults during rise of social media.
• Young adults during launch of video streaming services.
• DVRs and multi-media devices were new technology.
• First generation where everybody doesn’t get everything.
  • DVRs never rise much above 50% of U.S. Half the country time-shifts much of their TV viewing, half doesn’t.
  • First generation where TV viewing is not as much of a shared experience.
  • Common TV references, a hallmark of previous generations (“There’s a gremlin on the wing,” “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia,” “Meathead,” “What you talkin’ about Willis?”, “Let’s be careful out there,” “Master of my domain”) are no longer universal.
• See TV advertising as intrusive and annoying. Many are used to fast-forwarding through commercials via DVR or streaming commercial-free TV.

Major events that affected how they think:

• Terrorism on U.S. soil
  • Kids or teens during Oklahoma City bombing.
  • Kids, teens, or young adults on 9/11.
• Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Mass shootings (kids or teens during Columbine high-school massacre).
  • Teens or young adults during: Virginia Tech (2007), Fort Hood (2009), Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012), Aurora Theater Colorado (2012), San Bernadino California (2015), Orlando nightclub (2016), Las Vegas concert (2017), Southerland Springs, Texas church (2017), Stoneman Douglas High School (2018), Pittsburgh synagogue (2018), El Paso, Texas Walmart (2019). Buffalo, NY (2022), Uvalde, Texas elementary school (2022), Highland Park, Illinois July 4^th parade (2022).
  • Tightened security at churches, synagogues, and mosques.
  • Schools start having “active shooter” drills.
• Became adults in post-9/11 world, during the war on terrorism, and the Great Recession.
• Young adults during rise of the #MeToo movement when major male celebrities and power brokers have careers derailed by sexual assault and harassment allegations.
• Young adults during COVID 19 pandemic.
• Teens and young adults when Barack Obama is elected President.
• Young adults when Donald Trump is elected President.

How they relate to the world around them:

• More social than previous generations, less concerned about privacy.
• Fathers much more involved in child rearing than previous generations.
• Kids and teens have busier “planned” lives than previous generations.
• Came of age and entered workforce during economic recession – many kids and teens see their parents get laid off.
• First generation expected to make less money than their parents.
• Musical variety – Rock, Country, Hip-Hop, EDM.
  • 1990s – Gritty, gang-life Hip-Hop/Rap; Grunge
  • 2000s – New, feel-good Hip-Hop
• Environmentally aware.
• Equity for girls in school sports.

Consumer Behavior:

• Brick-and-mortar, online, or mobile
  • No preference for shopping in-store versus online – all depends on circumstance of the moment. But are more likely to make the actual purchase when in-store.
  • Pandemic led to more online shopping – particularly for groceries and other necessities. Many use apps for ordering food from restaurants instead of eating out.
  • Less brand-loyal and more willing to browse than previous generations.
  • Use their smartphones for help shopping even when at the store.
  • More likely than older generations to see shopping as a relaxing social event.
  • More influenced by word-of-mouth, social media posts, and consumer-generated content than previous generations.
  • Like interacting with brands and retailers on social media.
  • As with the previous generation, they do not respond well to hard-sell advertising or marketing tactics.

DVRs are in 20% of U.S. homes in 2008, 34% in 2010, 50% in 2015.  Internet at Home – 18% in 1997, 50% in 2001, 75% in 2010.  Broadband – 33% in 2005, 67% in 2015.  Smartphones – 36% in 2011, 76% in 2015.  Facebook – 49% of U.S. population used at least once a month in 2015 (24% used Instagram, 16% used Twitter).  SVOD – 47% in 2014 (16% have 2 or more services), 52% in 2015 (20% have 2 or more), 78% in 2020 (55% have 2 or more).

In 2022, the Multi-Channel Generation is 25-37.

The Multi-Platform Generation:  born 1998-2007 (Generation Z: 1996-2012)

• First generation to grow up with
  • High speed internet and search engines
  • DVRs
  • High-definition gaming (consoles, hand-held, online)
  • Smartphones
  • Social media
  • Video on demand, streaming services
  • Downloadable music
  • Multi-media devices
• First generation to not remember a world without the internet
• Peak TV – used to having multiple programming choices. First generation to grow up binge viewing their favorite TV shows.
• Key TV shows they grew up watching:
  • Kids: Sesame Street (1969-2015), Blue’s Clues (1996-2006), Rolie Polie Olie (1998-2007), SpongeBob SquarePants (1999- ), Bob the Builder (1999-2011), Pokemon (1999-2006), Dora the Explorer (2000-19), The Fairly OddParents (2001-17), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003-07), Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends (2004-09), Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008-20), Adventure Time (2010-18), Young Justice (2010- ), Ultimate Spider-Man (2012-17), Avengers Assemble (2013-19), Steven Universe (2013-19), Teen Titans Go! (2013- ), Rick and Morty (2013- ).
  • Comedies: The Simpsons (1989- ), Friends (1994-2004), South Park (1997- ), King of the Hill (1997-2010), That 70s Show (1998-2006), Family Guy (1999- ), Malcolm in the Middle (2000-06), Girlfriends (2000-08),  The Big Bang Theory (2007-19), The Middle (2009-18), Modern Family (2009-2020), The Cleveland Show (2009-13), Bob’s Burgers (2011- ), Black-ish (2014-22), The Conners (2018- ).
  • Dramas: Gilmore Girls (2000-07), Smallville (2001-11), 24 (2001-10), One Tree Hill (2003-12), Supernatural (2005-20), Gossip Girl (2007-12), The Vampire Diaries (2009-17), Glee (2009-15), The Walking Dead (2010- ), Pretty Little Liars (2010-17), Arrow (2012-20), Agents of Shield (2013-20), The Flash (2014- ), The 100 (2014-20), Gotham (2014-19), Empire (2015-20), Supergirl (2015-21), Riverdale (2017-), All American (2018-), Black Lightning (2018-21), Batwoman (2019-), Stargirl (2020- ), Superman & Lois (2021- ), Euphoria (2019- ), Yellowjackets (2021- ).
• Multi-tasking is their normal state.
• Multi-media devices – Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire Stick – and subscription video on demand (SVOD) are new technology

Major events that affected how they think:

• First post-9/11 generation.
  • Feel less secure than previous generations (first generation to need picture IDs in office buildings and airports).
• Kids and teens during Great Recession – many see their parents get laid off.
• Teens and young adults when an unarmed Black man, George Floyd, was killed by a white police officer, with the whole event captured on video. Rise of Black Lives Matter.
• First generation to grow up with mass shootings, active shooter drills.
• Teens and young adults during COVID-19 pandemic – makes them uncertain about the future.
• Teens and young adults during January 6, 2020 insurrection.
• Less likely than older generations to think the United States is superior to other countries.
• Donald Trump elected President before most of them can vote.

How they relate to the world around them:

• Early-age use of computers, apps, and web-based learning results in leaving behind traditional toys at an earlier age than previous generations. This also enables them to process information faster than previous generations.
• Social media and texting are major forms of communicating and socializing.
• When in doubt they fact check (mostly through Google or YouTube).
• More individualist and technology dependent than previous generations.
• Less likely to trust government authorities than previous generations.
• Major issues include climate change and social justice.
• LBGTQ+ rights and marriage equality are seen as normal.
• First generation where large segment favors restricting offensive speech.
• This generation is among the first not to see the “billionaire class” as aspirational.
• More likely to have at least one college educated parent than previous generations, and more likely to attend college themselves.
• Tend to enter the workforce later than previous generations. Many of this generation will start their careers working remotely.

Consumer Behavior:

• Digital natives
  • Use all available online resources to compare prices and product ratings.
  • Although most of their research is conducted online, they still see in-store shopping as an enjoyable social activity.
  • Pandemic caused many to exclusively make purchases online and through apps.
  • Like the instant gratification of shopping in-store more than waiting for online purchases to arrive. They like to order online and pick up the product in-store.
  • More likely to buy bigger ticket items only when they are on sale – or even waiting for newer products that might be available soon.
  • Less likely than previous few generations to use email or respond favorable to email marketing pitches.
  • Influenced by word-of-mouth, social media, and consumer-generated content.
  • Purchase decisions affected by a brand’s stance on issues they deem important.
  • More likely than previous generations to give online product reviews.

U.S. penetration:  DVRs – 20% in 2008, 34% in 2010, 52% in 2020.  SVOD – 52% in 2015 (20% have 2 or more), 78% in 2020 (55% have 2 or more).  Internet at Home – 18% in 1997, 50% in 2001, 75% in 2010.  Broadband – 33% in 2005, 67% in 2015, 80% in 2020.  Smartphones – 36% in 2011, 76% in 2015, 93% in 2020.  Smart TV – 52% in 2020, 76% in 2022.  Internet Connected Device – 42% in 2020.  Share of internet users: Facebook – 54% in 2010, 67% in 2020; Twitter – 8% in 2010, 22% in 2020; Instagram – 38% in 2020.

In 2022, the Multi-Platform Generation is 15-24.

The Mobile Generation:  born 2008-  (Generation Z: 1996-2012; Generation Alpha: 2013- )

• The first generation to be entirely born in the 21^st
• Screens are placed in front of them at a younger age than older generations, having a much greater impact on their formative years.
  • Positively impact on digital literacy and the ability to learn on one’s own, but may impair social development and lead to shorter attention spans (although since the advent of television itself, particularly when MTV debuted, virtually everything new has been thought to shorten attention spans).
  • Heavy users of social media, but not necessarily the same ones as their parents.
  • A generation of digital natives with no memory of a world before smartphones and search engines.
• TV/video is everywhere – this generation makes little distinction between broadcast, cable, YouTube, or SVOD. Content means everything, distribution source or screen means little.
• Growing up watching what they want, when they want, where they want. Big screens and portable small screens are interchangeable.
• Key TV shows they grew up watching:
  • Kids: Sesame Street (1969-2015), SpongeBob SquarePants (1999- ), Dora the Explorer (2000-19), The Fairly OddParents (2001-17), Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008-20), Adventure Time (2010-18), Young Justice (2010- ), Ultimate Spider-Man (2012-17), Avengers Assemble (2013-19), Steven Universe (2013-19), Teen Titans Go! (2013- ), Rick and Morty (2013- ).
  • Comedies: The Simpsons (1989- ), The Big Bang Theory (2007-19), The Middle (2009-18), Modern Family (2009-2020), Bob’s Burgers (2011- ), Black-ish (2014-22), The Conners (2018- ).
  • Dramas: Supernatural (2005-20), The Vampire Diaries (2009-17), Glee (2009-15), The Walking Dead (2010- ), Pretty Little Liars (2010-17), Arrow (2012-20), Agents of Shield (2013-20), The Flash (2014- ), The 100 (2014-20), Gotham (2014-19), Empire (2015-20), Supergirl (2015-21), Riverdale (2017- ), All American (2018- ), Black Lightning (2018-21), Batwoman (2019- ), Stargirl (2020- ), Superman & Lois (2021- ), Euphoria (2019- ), Yellowjackets (2021- ). 

Major events that affected how they think:

• Post-9/11 generation.
• Kids and teens during COVID-19 pandemic. Many see family members either get sick, lose jobs, or take pay cuts.
• Mass shootings and active shooter drills are normalized.
• Kids and teens when Russia invades Ukraine.
• First generation in 40 years to see rampant inflation.
• First generation to come of age without constitutional right to privacy and abortion.
• Kids and teens during January 6, 2020 insurrection.

How they relate to the world around them:

• Unknown how global pandemic, wearing masks, isolating, and remote learning/interaction with peers will affect them long-term.
• More racially and ethnically diverse than any generation in the U.S. The first generation where the majority of children born in this country will be non-white.
• More likely to attend college (although elite colleges will be less important to them and their parents than previous generations).
• More likely to grow up in single-parent households than any previous generation.
• More likely to be only children than previous generations. This probably means they are more likely to grow up expecting instant gratification.
• This generation will start their working lives later and live at home with their parents longer than previous generations.

What will affect this generation most, and how they will relate to media or to the world around them is not really knowable right now.  Anytime you try to predict what will happen 5 or 10 years down the road, you are constricted by current technology and historical perspective.  New technology and innovation, as well as consumer trends and attitudes, are perpetually around the corner.  When they appear, they fundamentally change current thinking, making predictions of yesterday obsolete.  The rapid and constant change to the video environment we’ve seen over the past 20 years may finally be slowing, which could extend the time frame of this media generation.   

In 2022, the Mobile Generation is under 15.

Less Cohesion Within and Across Generations: Impact and Implications

The last two generations (Multi-Platform and Mobile) are the first to gain access to new technology that will not be fully embraced by previous generations (as already mentioned, the VCR was the last universally utilized video usage device).  They are also the first generations to have substantially different media access and usage patterns among cohorts within their own generation.  This will undoubtedly be true of subsequent generations as well.

Slightly more than half of TV homes have DVRs.  Television is a fundamentally different medium for DVR owners than for those without, even if both groups are watching live TV (because of the pause and fast-forward features).  The half of the population with DVRs have substantially different television viewing habits and exposure to commercials than the half who do not have DVRs.  The same is true for those with and without SVOD, as well as those who subscribe to just one or two or various combinations of Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Prime Video, HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple TV+, and any of the more niche streaming services.

After more than 30 years of relative stability, the video media world is in a state of constant flux.  Broad age groupings such as Adults 18-49 and 25-54 are no longer meaningful.  Adults 18-49 with DVRs and SVOD, for example, are substantially different from Adults 18-49 with neither (or either).  Viewing behavior among Adults 25-54 who subscribe to four SVOD services are substantially different from Adults 25-54 who subscribe to just one or two.  Are current sampling methodologies used by television/video measurement research companies still capable of projecting to the total U.S., or are formerly similar demographic cohorts now so different that the whole concept of how to develop a sample and whether any single source can measure the totality of video viewing, need to be re-evaluated?

Previous standard generations (such as Baby Boomers and Generation X) are not as cohesive in terms of media availability and usage as they once were.  Subsequent generations are and will continue to be even less cohesive.  It is more important than ever to reassess how groups of consumers are evaluated, based on media dynamics.

The Law of Declining Ratings: Why Most New Shows Flop, and What Can Be Done to Prevent it

The mortality rate of new broadcast series is higher than ever.  Only 21% of the primetime scripted series premiering over the past five years will still be on the air during the 2022-23 season (36 out of 169) – 23% of the fall series (17 out of 73) and 20% of the mid-season shows (19 out of 96).  If we take out the spin-offs, reboots, and franchise extensions, the total percent still on the air becomes just 17% (24 out of 139).

I haven’t seen all of the new broadcast primetime TV series pilots yet, but I can predict with virtually 100% certainty that broadcast network audiences will decline next season and most new series will flop.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

We have the laws of physics, the law of gravity, the law of large numbers, the law of diminishing returns, the law of supply and demand, even the law of averages.  But despite the fact that broadcast ratings decline virtually every season, there’s no actual law of declining ratings that I could find.  So I’ll posit one.  As more viewing options become available, most returning TV shows will lose viewers, and it will take longer for potential viewers to become aware of new shows.  Corollary 1: The only way to stem the tide of network audience erosion is to promote both new and established series on TV shows that appeal to similar viewers – regardless of the network or platform.  Corollary 2: The likelihood that network TV audiences will decline form one year to the next is directly related to how much that network prioritizes rankings over ratings.

It’s not that the networks aren’t capable of creating hits anymore, it’s just that there are so many choices out there, television viewers no longer have to watch the “least objectionable programming,” a term probably unfamiliar to anyone under 35.

There are actually more high-quality shows on television than ever before.  The most popular ones seem to be on streaming services.  It seems that way because the press headlines, social media chatter, industry “buzz” tell us so.  Are Stranger Things or Squid Game really more popular than NCIS or Chicago Fire?  Have more people seen The Flight Attendant this season than Young Sheldon?  Of course not. 

In reality, we have no idea how many people are watching any individual show on streaming platforms – Nielsen’s sample is not representative of streaming subscriptions, nor do they measure all streaming services, nor do they measure streaming beyond the television set.  Whatever limited data is currently provided by streamers is not using the same metrics as Nielsen (or one another).  So, we really do not have any valid ongoing comparisons between linear TV viewing and streaming using the same metrics or time frame.  But we do know that broadcast ratings tend to decline every season.  Streaming series may as well, but we just don’t see the data.   

The New TV Season is Not as Relevant as It Used to Be 

Prior to the early 2000s, the new fall TV season was one of the few entertainment topics discussed throughout the summer on syndicated TV shows such as Entertainment Tonight, Extra, and Access Hollywood, and print magazines such as People, Us, and Entertainment Weekly.  The broadcast networks aired mostly repeats during the summer months, and cable networks contained mostly off-network reruns and reality.  Except for the occasional movie blockbuster or celebrity scandal, there wasn’t much else for the entertainment press to focus on.  That was before original scripted series started proliferating on cable networks during the summer months, and before the average TV home subscribed to at least three streaming services.  With new original scripted series available to viewers on multiple platforms year-round, the new broadcast TV season simply doesn’t generate as much press or viewer excitement as it once did.

New Series Promotion is More Important but Less Effectve Than Ever 

There are so many good shows on so many different venues and platforms, both ad-supported and not, even top-notch new shows can slip through the cracks if they aren’t effectively promoted.  Part of the problem promoting a new season that begins in September is that shows that air in the summer tend to appeal to different audiences than those that air in the fall.  It wasn’t a problem several years ago, when the summer consisted largely of broadcast repeats of regular series (which did generally appeal to the same viewers as in the fall, albeit fewer of them).  Today, the broadcast network summer schedules are filled with game shows, reality, and limited-run series – not necessarily the audience for the new fall scripted series.  While on-air promos are still the best way to create awareness for new shows such as Alaska (ABC), East New York  (CBS), Lopez vs. Lopez (NBC), Monarch (FOX), and Gotham Knights (CW), they are not maximizing their potential target reach by being promoted in Celebrity Family Feud (ABC), Love Island (CBS), American Ninja Warrior (NBC), and Lego Masters (FOX). 

 

My wife and I watch a significant amount of broadcast television during the fall and winter, but very little in the summer.  For us, summer is the time to find new streaming shows to binge.  Or, if we’ve heard good things about a linear TV series we haven’t seen, we’ll catch up with it on whatever on-demand platform it’s on.  This is becoming the case for more and more people across the country, and not just younger viewers. 

The broadcast networks still adhere to fall and spring seasons with program lineups, with weekly episodes targeted to largely similar audiences – unlike a streaming service, where shows that appeal to substantially different viewers can thrive side-by-side.  Netflix, for example, can put on Stranger Things, Money Heist, BoJack Horsemen, The Crown, Grace & Frankie, The Umbrella Academy, and Bridgerton, at the same time without being concerned about audience flow or cohesive nightly lineups.  Ad-supported cable networks do have seasons (or at least air weekly episodes), but are not as reliant as broadcast networks on premiere dates, lead-ins, or having similar programming across their schedules.  They also often repeat primetime episodes either immediately following the first run or during late night. 

The broadcast network structure makes promoting a new show that doesn’t fit in with that network’s typical audience much more difficult, particularly if it is restricted to its own air.  A prime example is the upcoming Monarch, a multi-generational family drama about a country-music dynasty (with Susan Sarandon, Trace Adkins, and Anna Friel) set to debut on Fox this fall.  The only problem is that it is not similar to any other current Fox show.  But it should appeal to many regular CBS viewers.  If the broadcast networks finally see the light and start cross-promoting one another’s programming, Monarch will advertise in shows such as CBS’s Bob Hearts Abishola, Young Sheldon, Blue Bloods, and NCIS, and most likely become a success (or at the very least get a strong viewer sampling).  If the broadcasters continue to live in the 1980s, seeing only each other as competition, and stubbornly refuse to cross-promote one another’s shows, then a series like Monarch might not get the viewer sampling it needs to become successful.

Do Fall or Mid-Season Shows Have a Better Chance to Succeed?

Theoretically, a new mid-season series has an advantage over one that debuts in the fall when it comes to promotion.  Shows that premiere in September are competing for awareness with several other new series debuting over the same two- or three-week period.  And these shows are promoted during the summer, when program schedules and viewing habits are substantially different than in the fall.  Of course, there is only an advantage for mid-season shows if thee broadcast networks start cross-promoting.  Broadcast shows that debut mid-season (usually January – May) are able to advertise in established first-run series – a big plus if you take advantage of all the programming on all the networks that reach the precise audience your new show is targeting.  Otherwise, as is often the case with ineffectively promoted broadcast shows, they will get lost in the shuffle – people are used to sampling new series in the fall, since so many debut at around the same time.  By mid-season, viewing patterns are more established, so without cross-promotion it’s easy for a new show to slip through the cracks – unless it’s a brand extension of a successful franchise.  

Of the current top-30 rated scripted shows among adults 18-49, for example, less than one-third (9) debuted in mid-season.  More than half of those (5) were spin-offs or franchise extensions – which already had built-in audiences, and did not need extensive promotion to become hits.

Who remembers these excellent but short-lived mid-season series – For the People, Whiskey Cavalier, Tommy, Deputy, Debris, and Rebel – shows that most people probably never heard of.  All victims of network stubbornness to not promote their product to the largest chunk of available target consumers – namely viewers who are watching similar programs, regardless of the network.

Keeping Viewers Tuned to Broadcast Television

Viewers don’t think in terms of ABC vs. CBS vs. NBC vs. FOX anymore.  Only network executives still think that way.  It is essential for the broadcast networks to finally understand that keeping viewers tuned to any broadcast network is the best way to keep them in the broadcast arena and get them to switch over to their programming.  Once they go to other platforms, it’s much harder to lure them back.  And while the broadcasters still refuse to take ads from each other, they gladly accept them from their real competitors, premium cable networks and streaming services. 

Ad-supported cable networks long ago figured out the best way to increase viewership is to cross-promote one another’s programming.  They also understand that it doesn’t really hurt them if other cable networks do the same.  If everyone gains viewers, more advertising dollars shift from broadcast to cable, and everyone eventually benefits.  Streaming services quickly realized that the best way to get viewers and new subscribers is to advertise where the most viewers still congregate – the broadcast networks.  Yet while the broadcast networks constantly sell broadcast television to advertisers as the best place to reach large chunks of target viewers at one time, they still don’t seem to believe it when it comes to their own product.

Prioritizing Rankings Over Ratings:  Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Decline 

The networks and the press have long considered program rankings far more important than actual ratings.  I still cringe when I see an article that talks about how well a program performed, winning its time period with a 0.4 rating among Adults 18-49.  This low a first-place rating should be a cause for alarm, not celebration.  

The upfront is designed to reward rankings over ratings, and enables the networks to continually raise prices for shrinking audiences.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you gave broadcast network executives a choice between growing their audience by 10% but slipping from first to second place, or losing 10% of their audience but moving up in the standings (because other networks declined by more), they would uniformly pick the latter.  This is probably one of the main reasons the broadcast networks stubbornly refuse to cross-promote their shows.  They’d rather hurt the other networks than see everyone improve (and potentially see another network gain more viewers).  Why else would NBC schedule its new American Song Contest opposite ABC’s popular American Idol?  They couldn’t possibly have thought it would attract more viewers.  But they might have thought it could hurt one of ABC’s stronger shows, and maybe they could inch up in the standings.

I led research departments at major ad agency groups for more than 30 years, and while media buyers would often ask for program or network ranking reports, I can’t recall many instances where anyone asked if a show or network’s ratings were up or down from the previous season.  If I was putting together a ranker chart for a presentation, I was never asked to include the actual ratings (in fact, I was usually asked not to).

For the larger cable networks, ranking among the top 10 matters more than growing their audience.  I worked at a cable network where even though our average rating was up from the previous year, we slipped from 10^th to 11^th place among cable networks for adults 25-54.  This was considered a disaster.  The fact that only three-tenths of a rating point separated the 3^rd and 20^th place cable networks was not relevant.  The following season, our average rating was unchanged, but we had managed to climb to 8^th place (because other networks declined).  Celebration time. 

Given how the marketplace has traditionally functioned, higher rankings do lead to short-term success and profitability.  But focusing on rankings at the expense of audience growth also leads to long-term erosion and drives viewers to other platforms, many of whom may not return.

Networks Stop Promoting New Shows Too Soon 

While the broadcast networks heavily promote their new fall shows over the summer and during premiere week, they tend to cut back on these efforts way too soon.  It usually takes three to five weeks for a new show to settle into its final ratings range.  And in the era of Peak TV+, it takes viewers longer than ever to even become aware of a new show much less start watching it.  I’m still discovering shows to watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime Video that have been on for several seasons.  While the networks rely on ad revenue, so don’t have that kind of time, they should be promoting new shows they believe in throughout the year and heavily promote the fact that viewers can catch up with recent episodes and previous seasons, which are available to stream on demand.  Stop treating good shows as lost causes if viewers haven’t found them during their first few weeks on the air.

There’s no law that says broadcast ratings have to decline every year or that most new shows will fail.  To paraphrase a famous playwright, “the fault lies not in their stars, but in themselves.”

Some Pre-Upfront Thoughts (5-22)

In a series of presentations to the advertising industry this week, the major media companies are announcing plans for their linear and streaming platforms during the next year or so, which includes their respective fall TV schedules.  This marks the start of the “upfront” season, when advertisers willmj,spend upward of $20 billion buying commercial time on national television shows scheduled to air during the 2022-23 broadcast year.

As I do every year, I will be reporting on each company’s presentation, and once I watch all the new series pilots, evaluating their upcoming broadcast network programming.  But first I have a few pre-upfront thoughts.

Do the Upfronts Still Matter? 

In today’s video world, the very idea of a fall TV season seems old fashioned.  The broadcast networks might still adhere to fall- and mid-season schedules for debuting new shows but their competitors do not.  Ad-supported and premium cable networks premiere many new shows during the summer months, while streaming services drop new series whenever they happen to be ready.  In a television landscape of 10-13 episode cable shows, and 6-10 episode streaming series, when you can binge entire seasons at one time, most viewers don’t think in terms of TV seasons anymore.  Their favorite non-broadcast shows premiere, go on hiatus, and return at different times during the year.

The broadcast networks, however, still hold onto a schedule that starts in the fall.  They have traditionally been locked into weekly schedules of first-run programming coinciding with their local affiliates’ sweep months of November, February, and May (which dates back to a time when local ratings were measured via paper diaries four times a year).  Current audience measurement technology makes sweep months increasingly irrelevant, although the “official” broadcast season continues to end in May.  It’s also easier to sell commercial time upfront if buyers know when every show will premiere.  And let’s not forget they still make the most money from selling advertising in their linear network programming. 

The once highly anticipated “upfront week” has become a much more subdued affair of late.  Because of the pandemic, the last two years were exclusively virtual presentations, which simply don’t have the same energy as live events at Radio City, Carnegie Hall, or Lincoln Center, and the subsequent celebrity-filled after-parties.  This year’s upfront events will be live, but those who don’t yet feel comfortable returning to crowded settings will still be able to live-stream the presentations. 

Until recently, there was also a fair amount of anticipation among the general public during this period.  After the upfront schedule announcements, pundits would proliferate on syndicated entertainment shows, and in print magazines, and newspapers, throughout the summer talking about the new fall TV shows.  Online chatter and buzz would ensue.  There used to be little else happening in the television  arena, and aside from the latest theatrical release or celebrity scandal, the upcoming fall TV season was the one of the only big entertainment news items.  Today, with so many high-profile streaming services with new programming premiering year-round, the broadcast fall TV season is no longer the only game in town, and new broadcast network shows simply don’t generate as much pre-season buzz as they did just a few years ago.

The upfront season has traditionally benefited sellers more than buyers, and have been seen as big branding events for the broadcast networks and the top tier ad-supported cable networks.

• The upfronts have served as annual reminders to the ad industry and media press that the broadcast networks are still watched by significantly more viewers than any other video source and are still the best way to reach large chunks of viewers at one time. On this basis alone, the upfronts have been extremely valuable to the broadcast networks (as well as some of the larger ad-supported cable networks).

This will be the third consecutive year, when instead of individual events for broadcast and cable networks, we have presentations from competing media conglomerates, each of whom owns a broadcast network, ad-supported and premium cable networks, digital platforms, subscription and ad-supported streaming services, and sports and news operations. 

The broadcast network schedule announcements have long been the foundation of these upfront presentations, but last year marked the first time they were not the main focus.  The presentations were instead designed to tell us that these media companies are everywhere, can reach everyone, have high-tech analytic capabilities to optimize and better target any ad campaign, are diverse and inclusive, and are better equipped and have better scale to provide advertisers and viewers what they want than any other media company (they all made essentially the same claims).  This year’s presentations are likely to be even more focused on the depth and breadth of scale, as well as streaming ads, and using alternate “currency” measurement to supplement (but not replace) Nielsen.

• The upfront system enables the networks to continually raise prices for a shrinking product. By traditionally having the broadcast upfront first, the networks have created an artificial demand for what is essentially an unlimited supply of rating points.  It also allows the sellers to force the buyers to purchase advertising in less desirable programming so they can get the more desirable inventory. 

Keep in mind that 30 years ago, the average broadcast network rating was more than 10 times higher than the average of the top-10 cable networks.  Twenty years ago, it was roughly 7 times higher.  Today, it’s barely 3 times higher.  The advantage broadcast had over the top ad-supported cable networks is not nearly what it used to be.   But if more cable networks shift away from original scripted series, the broadcast networks will again have an advantage.

• For advertisers, audience guarantees makes the process seem worthwhile. If the buy underperforms what a network promised (guaranteed), the network provides the advertiser with additional commercials to make up the shortfall.  This was important at a time when there were wide disparities among network and individual program ratings, and future performance was less predictable.  

 

As average ratings have declined, however, they have become easier to project from one season to the next.  Blockbuster hits are few and far between – particularly in mid-season.  It is much more likely you will under-estimate a show’s performance than over-estimate it, and far more likely you will not overestimate an entire buy.  And if you’re not buying upfront, but rather going into the marketplace just a month or two before a show airs, if you can’t project the audience with a reasonable degree of accuracy, you should be doing something else.

• The upfronts are basically a futures market, allowing media companies to provide Wall Street with the confidence that they are financially healthy.

For advertisers, the upfront contains a fair amount of uncertainty.  When you buy inventory for an entire year upfront, you know going in that much of what you think you’re getting won’t be there later in the year.

For the networks and studios, spending tons of money on new programming and pilots also remains a risky proposition – only about 21% of all the new series that debuted over the past five years will still be on the air next season.  Increasingly, partnerships and back-end deals (often with streaming services) are necessary to help offset these high costs.

Are Ads on Streaming Platforms More Valuable Than Ads on Linear TV?

Ad-supported tiers on streaming services are important to their media company owners who are looking for additional revenue streams to help offset the high cost of programming, to advertisers who are searching for ways to reach consumers at a time of declining linear TV ratings, and to the general public, many of whom are looking for ways to reduce their own costs.

HBO Max introduced an advertising tier in 2021.  Netflix  has indicated it might start accepting ads in a lower-priced tier by the end of 2022.  Disney+ will do so even sooner.  This is not only a game changer, but it is the best thing to happen for advertisers in many years.  

From an advertiser perspective, one key advantage of linear TV is that you know in advance when viewers will watch the show (more or less), and that the audience will be fairly predictable and stable on a weekly basis – which means they are better suited to time-sensitive advertising campaigns.  That’s because network programming is locked into weekly schedule grids.  Not so with streaming series, where viewership is more likely to come in spurts, depending both on the platform and on how many episodes of a series are dropped at one time. 

Nevertheless, the advantages of streaming commercials to advertisers far outweigh any potential downside.  When you are streaming something, it is, along with DVR playback, typically the highest level of appointment TV (on demand).  There is no commercial avoidance through channel switching, and unlike DVR playback, you can’t fast-forward through commercials.  Streaming services also contain fewer ads per hour and significantly less commercial clutter than linear networks.

A “confirmed” commercial impression on a streaming platform is therefore far more valuable than a commercial minute impression on linear networks.  By confirmed, I mean certified by the streaming service (which has access to the actual data), not third-party measurement done by Nielsen, ComScore, or some other research company.  Current C3 ratings do not accurately account for commercial viewers on linear TV, and Nielsen’s sample is not representative of the streaming universe, nor does it measure all streaming services or devices.

While most streamers don’t reach nearly as many viewers as a broadcast network, Netflix does.  Even if only 20% of current Netflix users opt for the lower-priced ad-supported tier, it would probably place Netflix above any linear cable network in terms of audience size, particularly for its most popular series – and there’s no question that a lower-priced version will attract more subscribers.  Advertisers will know exactly how many viewers they are reaching and for how long (if they don’t rely on third-party measurement for streaming).

 

Many people, particularly younger folks, do not really want ads interrupting their streaming.  They’ve grown accustomed to ad-free viewing.  So we seem headed toward another situation (that we’ve already seen to a degree with DVRs) where the most desirable viewers, those with more disposable income, will be the greatest ad-avoiders.  The demographic differences between those who opt for ad-supported streaming and those who can easily afford not to, bears watching.  Will some people want the ad-supported tier for the more expensive Netflix and HBO Max but not for the less expensive Disney+, Paramount+ or Peacock?  This, of course, requires good research into streaming, including who subscribes to which form of which service and why.  Research which is now sorely lacking (non-existent?).

Making the Academy Awards More Viewer and Advertiser Friendly (4/22)

As an avid movie fan and reasonably heavy moviegoer (pre-pandemic), I look forward to watching the Academy Awards every year.  And every year I find myself asking the same question: “Is it always this boring?”  I invariably find myself answering, “yes” (“the slap” notwithstanding).  And every year I forget the previous year’s telecast and look forward to watching the show all over again. 

But then, I’m a Baby Boomer.  Folks in my generation, as well as Generation X and early Millennials, grew up watching the Academy Awards at a time when you seldom saw or heard much about movie stars outside of what their publicists put out there or what you might see on talk shows.  Movie stars were more glamorous to the public, and it was interesting to see them in real-life settings.  There was no social media, and people generally did not see behind the curtain (and celebrities didn’t communicate with their fan bases on Twitter or Instagram).  There were also no streaming services, and no major competition for the broadcast networks – which typically scheduled repeats opposite the Oscars, which was always the second highest rated show of the year (next to the Super Bowl).  Among advertisers, it was dubbed the “Super Bowl for women.”  It’s no coincidence that over the past 20 years the median age of the broadcast has gotten older by roughly 20 years – they’re not attracting new generations of viewers, and the audience is aging along with the show.

There’s been a lot of discussion over the past few years about whether there needs to be a host for the Academy Awards broadcast, and if so, who would be best suited for the role.  This came to a head in 2019 after the scheduled host. Kevin Hart, was forced to step down when some old controversial tweets were discovered.  They proceeded without a host, and decided to do so again in 2020.  The pandemic restrictions in 2021 made a host irrelevant.  This year, hosts returned, as Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer, and Regina Hall shared the reins.  There is little doubt that hosts do make the show flow better and provides more natural transition from one segment to the next.  But unless they bring back Johnny Carson or a young Billy Crystal, any host will have little to do with whether the show does better or worse in terms of Nielsen ratings.

Much was made this year about how eight “less significant” (to viewers) awards were given out before the Oscars telecast, and then edited for airing during the show.  This was supposedly to shorten the broadcast, provide more time for other bits, and possibly increase ratings.  To this viewer, it seemed as though all they did was cut some time that showed the winners walking to the stage – a very small impact on the home viewer for all the controversary and justifiably hurt feelings it caused.

That, of course, had little to do with improving either the broadcast or the show’s ratings.  The problem is not who the host is or whether the show runs 3 ½ or 4 hours.  The main problem is with the structure of the show itself.  The Academy Awards broadcast is geared toward Hollywood insiders rather than the television viewer.  There’s no reason it can’t do both.

Some relatively simple changes could revitalize the show, make it more viewer and advertiser friendly, and perhaps stall or reverse the trend that saw its median age rise from 40 to nearly 60 during the past 20 years.

Some have complained about the length of the telecast but that is only an issue because of how the show is presented.  The show is generally about three-and-a-half hours long, and they still don’t give out the biggest awards until after primetime.

In this year’s award ceremony, while the Supporting Actress award was presented at around 8:20 pm, it took another hour before they got to Supporting Actor.  The other awards presented between 8:30 and 10:55, during the bulk of primetime, when television usage is at its peak, were for sound, cinematography, documentary short subject, visual effects, animated feature film, animated short film.  international feature film, live action short film, costume design, original screenplay, adapted screen play, original score, film editing, documentary, and original song.

Now, I’m not suggesting giving short-shrift to any of these important awards or not showing them live; simply spreading them out differently so they surround what most viewers at home consider the major awards.  The Oscar for Director, for example, was presented at 10:55 pm (EST).  The award for Best Actor was at around 11:10 pm, Best Actress was at about 11:25 pm, and Best Picture wasn’t until 11:30 pm.  Anyone who pays attention knows that if they tune in after 11pm, they can still catch the three or four biggest awards.

What a lot of people don’t realize, is that what should be the highest rated portion of the show is not even measured by Nielsen.  The ratings company only measures national telecasts through the last national commercials (the post-primetime portion of the broadcast typically contains only local commercials).

There was a time when it was logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.   Thirty years ago, there were basically only three broadcast networks, much fewer cable networks, no streaming options, no social media, and very little original programming opposite the Academy Awards.  But in today’s media world, with so many other outlets competing for viewers’ time, it is counter-productive to wait until after primetime to present the most important awards.      

In addition, particularly with big live events, social media often keeps viewers tuned in.  Had the major awards been spread out over the entire telecast, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the like, would have seen significantly more Oscar-related activity, and kept more people tuned in and discussing the show.

I suggest that if they spread out the awards by giving out the six acting/directing/picture awards every 30 minutes or so, ratings for the entire broadcast would be significantly higher.  For example, present Supporting Actress at 8:15, Supporting Actor at 8:45, Director at 9:15, Actor at 9:45, Actress at 10:15, and Best Picture at 10:45.  Schedule everything else to fit into these parameters, and boom, the show is finished by 11pm – and even if it still runs long, ratings will not be negatively affected.

There are other ways to make the broadcast more viewer and advertiser friendly.

One solution would be to have a separate hour-long show from 7-8:30pm for these “other” awards (with a different host). Then they can have longer clips of how costume design, makeup, production design, sound mixing, etc., are done, which may actually be interesting to a lot of people.

The main awards show can then be from 8:30-11:30pm.  In the main awards show I would include Best Picture and Director, the four acting awards, as well as Original and Adapted Screenplay and Original Song.

Here are some suggestions on the flow of the main show.

Present one of the four major awards every 30 minutes – Best Director at 9:00, Best Actor at 9:30. Best Actress at 10:00, and Best Picture at 10:30.  Precede the award presentation with 2-3 minute clips of each nominee.  This will provide a better picture of each performance and greater anticipation for each award.  It will also serve as more effective promotion for the nominated movies.

Each half-hour segment of the show, for Best Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture can be sponsored by a different advertiser.  While showing the clips, they could give viewers a chance to vote online and by phone, and then show their choices at the end of the show (or on an after-show) to see how viewers’ votes compared to the actual winners.  Viewers would vote only for the nominated movies – this year’s attempt at Twitter voting for some made-up categories was awkward, and didn’t seem to belong here.

If these suggestions are implemented, the show will flow better, viewer and social-media interest will be elevated, ratings will improve, younger viewers might tune in, and people may be interested in seeing some of the nominated movies they might have missed.  A win, win, win, win, win, win.

Some Pre-Upfront Questions (and maybe some answers) (3/22)

Until the early 2000s, changes to the media landscape – what was available to view and how it could be viewed – were gradual.  The slow pace of change made predicting consumer television viewing habits relatively simple, and slow-to-change research companies didn’t have to pivot too quickly, nor innovate too often. 

Over the past 20 years, however, the media environment has been in a constant state of change.  How people use and relate to media, video, and individual television shows is largely dependent on the ever-expanding array of media devices and subscription video platforms they can access.  While most people eventually got the same access to almost everything (pre-2005), this is no longer the case.  Developing national television samples that adequately represent the country at large has become increasingly difficult.

The way broadcast networks, once the only national television presence, have dealt with threats to their dominance hasn’t really changed much over the years – they’ve traditionally tended to think of only one another as their real competition.  As a result, their combined audiences have continued to erode at an unnecessarily rapid pace.

With all that said, here are some related questions I have leading into the upfront season.

Why do the broadcast networks promote their competitors but not one another?

Yes, I know I’ve been writing about this for years, but I’ve yet to receive an answer that makes sense.  Whenever I ask network executives for their rationale, I get responses like, “Why would we ever help our competition?,” “Our affiliates wouldn’t like it” (a real 1980s response), “It’s an ego thing,” or “I don’t know.”  The answer should be, “Because we’ve been committing promotional malpractice, we’ve decided to change this absurd policy immediately.  We realize it’s the best way to maximize viewer sampling and improve our overall ratings.”

I do actually understand how this reasoning originated.  In the beginning, there were only three broadcast networks competing for national advertising dollars.  With no competitors other than themselves, they fought fiercely for every rating point, and would never think of helping one another.  Then, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as more and more people started to get various cable networks, the term “network erosion” entered the media lexicon.  But it wasn’t until the early 2000s, when ad-supported cable networks started airing original scripted series, that cross-promotion became a key element in cable’s growth (at the expense of the broadcast networks). 

Cable networks, never encumbered by the tradition of ruling the airwaves, quickly understood the best way to grow their audience was to appeal to those who were watching similar shows on other networks.  They also realized that it didn’t really hurt them if other cable networks did the same.  The more cable networks that grew viewers, the more advertising dollars would shift from broadcast to cable, and everyone would eventually benefit – which is exactly what happened.

There are several cable networks that air some of my favorite scripted series, but I don’t watch much of their other programming.  I could name more than a dozen shows off the top of my head that I never would have started watching had I not seen it promoted on a different network.  This is also true for when those shows return mid-year for a new season – I would not have realized, for example, that Killing Eve (one of my favorite shows) had recently returned for its final season had I not seen it promoted on another network.

There’s a reason streaming services are spending so much money advertising on linear television.  They know that the best way to get viewers and new subscribers is to advertise where the most viewers still congregate.  How else would I have known two of my favorite streaming series, Ozark (Netflix) and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (Prime Video) had recently returned?  Yet while the broadcast networks constantly sell broadcast television to advertisers as the best place to reach large chunks of target viewers at one time, they still don’t act that way it when it comes to their own product.

Viewers don’t think in terms of ABC vs. CBS vs. NBC vs. FOX anymore.  Only network executives still think that way.  

The broadcast networks continue to stubbornly refuse to promote one another’s new shows, while gladly accepting ads from their real competitors – namely premium cable networks and streaming services.  The idea that a new show produced by CBS can’t be promoted on CBS because it airs on ABC, is, to say the least, ludicrous.  Another point that illustrates how absurd this all is – the  broadcast networks accepted ads for most streaming services, but not for CBS All Access, for no reason I can find other than it had “CBS” in its name.  As soon as it rebranded itself as Paramount+, the other broadcast networks started happily taking its ads (as I had predicted thy would).

In this year’s Super Bowl on NBC, there were 10 promos for NBC shows and 8 for its steaming service, Peacock.  But there were also 2 ads for Disney+, 2 for Prime Video, 1 for Netflix, 1 for HBO Max, 1 for HBO, and 1 for AMC+.  There were none for ABC, CBS, Fox, or CW.

In what other business does a company refuse to advertise its product to the largest group of readily available customers?  These aren’t just random consumers the broadcast networks are choosing not to pursue.  These are their prime prospects, whom the networks know are already watching similar programming, who are at that moment most receptive toward receiving a message about other TV shows.  They are already watching and engaged with the exact type of program the networks are trying to promote.  I’m not sure how to say it any more plainly.

It is essential for the broadcast networks to finally understand that keeping viewers tuned to any broadcast network is the best way to keep them in the broadcast arena and get them to switch over to their programming.  A broadcast hit on one network actually does benefit all networks – it reminds the industry and the press that except for the occasional cable blockbuster (such as The Walking Dead or Yellowstone), nothing else is capable of delivering as large an audience at one time as a successful broadcast series.  Yet the broadcast network seem perfectly willing to encourage their viewers to seek out other platforms. 

Why are rankings more important than ratings?

The networks (and the press) have long considered program rankings far more important than actual ratings.  This is likely another reason the broadcast networks still refuse to cross-promote one another – they’d rather they all decline and the other networks decline more, than they all grow, but the other networks grow more.

I still cringe when I see an article that talks about how well a program performed, winning its time period with a 0.5 rating among Adults 18-49 (it seldom mentions that the 4^th place network got a 0.35 rating).  The headline here should be, “If a 0.5 rating is good enough to win the time slot, the broadcast networks have big problems,” or, “If less than two-tenths of a rating point separates first and fourth place, who cares who’s #1?”

The upfront is designed to reward rankings over ratings, and enables the networks to continually raise prices for shrinking audiences.  I led research departments at major ad agency groups for more than 30 years, and while media buyers would often ask for program or network ranking reports, I can’t recall many instances where anyone asked if a show or network’s actual ratings were up or down from the previous season.  If I was putting together a ranker chart for a presentation, I was never asked to include the actual ratings (in fact, I was usually asked not to).

For the larger cable networks, ranking among the top 10 matters more than growing their audience.  I worked at a cable network where even though our average rating was up from the previous year, we slipped from 10^th to 11^th place among adults 25-54.  This was considered a disaster.  The fact that only three-tenths of a rating point separated the 3^rd and 20^th place cable networks was not relevant.  The following season, our average rating was unchanged, but we had managed to climb to 8^th place (because other networks declined).  Celebration time. 

Focusing on rankings, and hurting other networks at the expense of your own audience growth, is short-term thinking that leads to long-term decline.  Imagine how the industry (and press) would react if each broadcast network increased its audience next season.  The only reason it won’t happen is because the networks don’t want it to.

What audience measurement currency should be used this upfront?

The Video Advertising Bureau (VAB), the industry trade group that represents both broadcast and cable networks, is demanding that Nielsen stop releasing its new “Big Data” monthly audience reports, which include set-top-box data and smart TV Automated Content Recognition (ACR) data to complement Nielsen’s traditional age/sex panel data.  The VAB cites initial data provided to the industry as “rife with illogical audience patterns and contradictions, that render it currently unusable.”  They want any new data that could be used in pricing advertising inventory held back until after the upfront, and want Nielsen to explain how the data was created.  After the upfront, the industry can examine the data.  The VAB also believes that offering two different measures leading into upfront negotiations will just serve to create confusion.

Nielsen responded that it was disappointed the VAB chose to raise its concerns in the press, and that Nielsen has been in regular contact with its clients to review the audience methodology.  Nielsen went on to say “…a trade group associated with traditional TV channels is an incomplete and biased subset of the video marketplace.  We prefer to work openly with the entire industry to get the best measurement solution.  Furthermore, based on client feedback across buyers and sellers we made the decision to allow either data set to be used for trading in the fall.”

One key question should be, do industry expectations of what audience data “should” look like matter?  The answer if you want accuracy is no.  But since accuracy has never been as important to the buyers and sellers of commercial time as stability (without which the industry will have trouble functioning), the practical answer is yes. 

This is one reason no new measurement service has been able to unseat Nielsen as national industry currency, nor is any likely to.  The industry relies on trending data and a degree of stability,  A new system that generates substantially different data from Nielsen is scary.  Since virtually no one has ever really tried to understand how accurate Nielsen ratings are, no one wants to deal with trying to figure out if a new system that reports significantly different data is actually more accurate.  And if it provides essentially the same data, what’s the point in switching away from the only company with 50 years of experience and some of the best researchers in the business?

While much of the industry pretends to want the most accurate measurement possible, the reality is that sellers want higher ratings and buyers want stability.

I’ve been saying for a few years now that so-called demographic cohorts, the foundation of Nielsen audience samples, no longer necessarily have similar viewing habits or even access to the same viewing options – particularly when it comes to streaming services, DVRs, and multi-media devices.  This makes current sampling procedures woefully inadequate in projecting total U.S. television viewing.

I don’t know about you, but my viewing is not nearly as stable and predictable as it was 10 years ago.  I have a DVR and subscribe to multiple streaming services.  When Netflix recently dropped the 4^th season of Ozark, my linear TV viewing changed dramatically for a week or so as my wife and I watched all seven episodes and then caught up on the regular shows we missed via DVR (we forgot to record one HBO show, so we caught up with that one on HBO Max).  This happens whenever a streaming services drops one of our favorite series – our viewing pattern changes, even if they drop just one episode a week rather than a full season.  Often times we will wait until two or three episodes are available so we can watch more than one at a time.

Here’s my problem with both the VAB and Nielsen perspectives.  There is no question that census-level “big data” is more accurate than a relatively small national sample used in Nielsen’s panel.  There is also no question that the panel will provide more stable and “logical” data.  But Nielsen always likes to have it both ways.  It positions itself as the arbiter of good research when it suits its needs, and then as simply a data provider when it suits other needs.  By saying it is merely providing data and it’s up to buyers and sellers to decide which to use, it is in fact putting its stamp of approval on both.  In reality, one is better and should be used as marketplace currency.  Until both buyers and sellers can agree on which is “best,” it is probably a good idea to hold off until after this year’s upfront, and then spend the next few months examining and validating the new data.

It should be noted that anytime you dramatically improve audience measurement, the previously highest rated networks will tend to decline and the lower rated ones will tend to increase.  When Nielsen switched for the old meter/diary measurement to people meters, there were some significant changes in reported viewing patterns – no one thought they were “illogical” because we all understood it to be a vast improvement in measurement methodology.  Of course, at the time, there were limited viewing options, and  it had been long assumed that the old diary system resulted in human bias that cause the most popular TV shows, and those that aired multiple times a week in syndication to be overstated.  In today’s much more splintered video environment, with many more cable networks, numerous streaming services, and multiple viewing platforms, no one knows how a vastly improved audience measurement methodology will or “should” impact reported viewing.

Should Disney+ and Netflix offer lower-priced advertising tiers?

Yes.

Is it better for a streaming service to drop an entire season at once

or on a weekly episode basis?

I’ve always felt as though companies that owned both linear TV networks and streaming services tended to drop streaming series episodes once-a-week because they don’t want their network audience to become dependent on bingeing, but rather continue to expect new weekly episodes, which has always been the ad-supported linear network model.  This accounts for how Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, and Peacock schedule most of their original series.  Apple TV+ probably does the same because it does not have the extensive libraries or acquired programming the others have stockpiled, so it benefits them to give viewers a reason to come back every week.  And I’m sure that all believe they will delay subscriber churn if viewers need to return every week for two or three months to watch one of their favorite shows (instead of watching 10-13 episodes in less than a week).

Netflix, of course, has always dropped entire seasons at once and couldn’t care less about the linear network model.  It also has so much more original content than any other streaming service that it doesn’t need any individual show to keep viewers coming back.  Amazon Prime Video used to drop entire seasons, but recently moved toward dropping a couple of episodes and then one per week.  This could be because they are not producing the same quantity of programming as in the past, and are putting on more “big event” series such as The Wheel of Time and the upcoming The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.

There are a number of ways Netflix benefits from dropping full seasons of series.  When they drop an even moderately popular series, it will tend to show up on Nielsen’s weekly list of most viewed streaming shows.  And with the streaming service and the press reporting meaningless data such as billions of minutes viewed, Netflix’s full seasons have a tremendous advantage over other streamers’ once-a-week episodes.  Given the PR value of dropping entire seasons at once, which does lead to increased subscribers (who want to watch the “most popular” shows), I only see upside for everyone doing so – at least for some of their key shows.

I know with my own viewing habits, I never remember which day of the week a given streaming show debuts, so I tend to forget about a weekly show, and then wind up going back to it after two or three more episodes are available.

Squid Game Yes, Squid Game No - Discuss (11/21)

Netflix claims this South Korean survival drama is its most watched new series ever – the latest worldwide phenomenon in a string of major global hits, which include,  Money Heist (Spain), Lupin (France), Elite (Spain), Dark (Germany), Fauda (Israel), Ragnarok (Norway), Barbarians (Germany), Bordertown (Finland), and Kingdom (South Korea), among others.  Whether or not Squid Game is really Netflix’s most viewed series launch (the streamer is not exactly transparent with its audience metrics, and Nielsen streaming data is extremely limited), there’s no question that it’s one of the buzziest (and most controversial) shows in a long time.

Whether you see Squid Game as an insightful social commentary on capitalism and income inequality or simply as a brutally violent exercise with no other purpose than to be brutally violent, your reaction is valid and defensible.  I’d like to say it’s the former, because that makes me feel better about finding the series so entertaining – but I keep going back and forth.

            Here’s a not-so-brief synopsis.  Spoilers ahead…

In an over-sized, candy-colored playground, 456 desperate people who are drowning in debt are pitted against one another for a chance to win a life-changing amount of money.  They have to compete in a series of childhood games, sometimes competing individually, and sometimes as part of teams.  The catch is that all the losers through the six-rounds of contests are immediately gunned down by a group of masked and costumed guards.

Those who run the game do not force anyone to participate.  They invite people who they know have insurmountable debt and very few choices in life, with the caveat that once they accept, they cannot leave until the tournament is over (if they survive), or if a majority of players agree to end the game (and forfeit the prize money).  Once they accept, they are picked up by vans, gassed into unconsciousness, and driven to a secret location, where they awaken in a dormitory setting wearing green, numbered track suits.  A giant grid displays pictures of each participant along with their number.  The guards, who are  donned in pink jumpsuits, keep constant watch over the contestants.  The games are run by someone called the Front Man (Lee Byung-hun) in a black mask and uniform.

As the games unfold we are gradually introduced to the main characters and discover their motivations for playing.  Despite being from vastly different backgrounds, most have some basic things in common – they are broke and desperate for money or have insurmountable debt, they have either creditors, gangsters, or the police closing in on them, and there is virtually no hope of their situations getting better anytime soon.

You will cheer on some players while despising others, but all have an equal chance of being the next to be killed.  The main characters are no more safe than the many background characters, whose stories we never hear.  This is, of course, different from most TV shows, where you can be reasonably sure that the main characters will not be abruptly killed off.  It adds to the anxiety and unpredictability of the series.

A number of interesting philosophical questions arise as the games continue and a smaller and smaller group gets closer to actually winning the cash prize and instantly becoming wealthy.  Can you remain good in a system that is essentially corrupt?  Are you a better person for feeling guilty about betraying someone than if it doesn’t bother you at all?  Can one person change the system or will the system inevitably change every individual?

The acting is top notch.  Here are the main players: 

Lee Jung-jae (#456) is Seong Gi-hun, a divorced chauffeur and gambling addict, who is deeply indebted to some dangerous loan sharks.  He lives with his sick mother (who has no health insurance), and is estranged from his ex-wife and young daughter.  He is the first character we meet (before the games begin) and much of the series is seen through his eyes.

Park Hae-soo (#218) plays Seong Gi-hun’s childhood friend and classmate, Cho Sang-woo, a former top investment broker, who is wanted by the police for stealing money from his clients.  He also has massive personal debts from bad investments.  He is the smartest player and often comes up with winning strategies.  He went to SMU business school, and Gi-hun has always looked up to him.

Yeong-su (#001) is Oh Il-nam, an elderly man with a brain tumor, who would rather play the game than just wait to die on the outside.  He is more formidable than he seems. 

Jung Ho-yeon (#067) is Kang Sae-byeok, a North Korean defector hoping to get enough money to bring her parents across the border and get her little brother out of an orphanage.  She is also a pick-pocket who stole Gi-hun’s money after he won a bundle at the track. 

Heo Sung-tae (#101) is Jang Deok-su, a gangster with huge gambling debts, who has stolen money from his mob boss and is on the run.  He is mean and dangerous.

Anuparn Tripathi (#199) is a migrant worker from Pakistan who needs to provide for his young family after attacking and injuring his boss for refusing to pay his wages.  He is one of the physically strongest of all the players. 

Kim Joo-ryoung (#212) is a loud and manipulative con-woman whose reasons for entering the game are unclear (but she’s probably in debt and on the run from someone).

Wi Ha-joon is a police officer who infiltrates the game by impersonating a guard so he can find his missing brother.

More than half the competitors are eliminated during the first game – a surreal version of “Red Light, Green Light,” in which those who move even slightly after “Red Light” is announced by a giant little girl doll/robot (with a rotating head and eyes that scan the arena for any movement) are shot.

Each time a contestant is eliminated, his or her image in blinked out on the giant screen, and more money is added to the pot – which hangs from the ceiling as a constant reminder of how much money they can win (it eventually grows to 45.6 billion won, or roughly $38 million).

After the first game, where 255 of the 456 contestants are eliminated, the remaining players take a vote to end the game (which passes by a single vote).  They are deposited back into their normal lives – which are so miserable that 187 of the 201 remaining players decide to return to the game.

The second game involves cutting out one of five shapes (circle, square, triangle, star, or umbrella) embedded in a piece of candy without breaking it – relatively easy if you picked the square, not so easy if you picked the umbrella.  Players had to select a shape before they knew what the game entailed.  Anyone who doesn’t have a completely intact shape or doesn’t finish by the 10-minute time limit is immediately shot.  Seventy-nine more players are eliminated during this game. 

One player attacks a guard and forces him to remove his mask – the guard is killed by the Front Man because his identity was revealed.  The player commits suicide rather than having the guards shoot him.  During a break, the gangster (#101) beats another player to death with no consequences.  Players realize that if they kill other players between games, their odds of winning improve.  This adds a whole new element to the proceedings, as groups and alliances are formed. 

When Seong Gi-hun asks Kang Sae-byeok to join his team so they can protect one another between games, she responds, “I don’t trust people.”  He answers, “You don’t trust people because you can, you trust people because you have to.”  This is one of the ongoing themes – who should you trust and should you consider betraying them to save yourself?  During the night, when the lights are turned off, various players attack one another.  More than 20 additional players are eliminated.

One of the players (Yoo Sung-joo) is a doctor who has secretly been working with some corrupt guards to traffic the organs of dead players.  In return, they give him advance information on what the next game will be.  When the Front Man discovers what’s going on, he is not concerned with the selling of the organs, but rather the idea that any player would receive an unfair advantage.  He explains that this is the one place in their lives where every player has equality regardless of who they are or where they come from.  Everyone competes on equal footing.  The doctor and corrupt guards are killed and their bodies displayed out in the open for all remaining players to see.

The players are required to form teams of 10 for the third game, which they discover after the teams are selected will be tug of war – with each losing team falling into a chasm to their deaths below.  Stronger teams with all men seem to have a big advantage.  The old man (#001) and the smart one (#218) come up with strategies to help their group, which includes three women, defeat physically stronger teams.  Their main rival group, led by the gangster (#101), also wins.

For the fourth game, each player selects a partner who they assume will be their teammate.  But instead, after the players have paired up, they are told that they will be competing against one another (and one person from each pair will be eliminated).  They are each given a bag of 10 marbles and told they can make up their own game.  The one who winds up with all the marbles will be the winner.  Seong Gi-hun and Cho Sang-woo, friends who grew up playing the Squid Game together, have vastly different approaches.  Seong is mostly ruled by his emotions, while Cho sees everything as a solvable intellectual exercise.  Yet both arrive at the conclusion at the same time that the only way to win this game is to betray their friend and partner (rather than compete fairly and risk losing).  This wracks Gi-hun with guilt, while Sang-woo seems fine with his own actions.  After this game, there are only 16 players left.

For the fifth game, the players are required to walk across a bridge made up of glass panels.  Half the panels are tempered glass, which can support the weight of two people.  The other half are regular glass, which will shatter under the weight of a single person.  Step on the wrong panel and you fall to your death below.  Players were allowed to choose the order in which they would go before they knew what the game was.  Those who chose to go later have a big advantage.

In the seventh episode, we discover the tournament is funded by a group of bored, ultra-wealthy deviants, who bet enormous sums of money on the outcomes of each game.  All of them are seen wearing gold or diamond-encrusted animal masks, but they are clearly white westerners – Americans and Europeans.  

In the ninth episode season finale, a brutal competition of Squid Game results in a champion. We also learn who created the game and why. If the game itself does not make it clear that one of the main points the series is trying to make is that the ultra-rich see the poor as less than human, the game’s creator, when confronted by the eventual winner, who questions how they can be so brutal and dismissive of the death they caused, answers, “You bet on horses, we bet on humans.  You are our horses.”  This is a fascinating juxtaposition – at the beginning of the series we see one of the key players betting on a horse race; now he and the other players are the horses. 

The game creator goes on to say, “What does someone with no money have in common with someone with too much money to know what to do with?  Life is no fun for either of them.  If you have too much money it doesn’t matter what you buy…everything just gets boring.”  He explains that he and his clients wanted to figure out something to do where they could have fun, so they could feel something.  His adult life has become devoid of joy, so he hearkened back to the games he enjoyed playing with his friends as a young boy.  He justifies the brutality by pointing out that no one was forced to play.  These explanations actually weaken the impact of the series, because they feel like something just tacked on to the ending to explain to viewers that what they’ve just seen has some social relevance and that rich people have no idea what poor people go through – and see them as disposable and easily replaceable.

Some reviewers have compared Squid Game to Hunger Games and the Japanese action-thriller, Battle Royale, both of which focus on a dangerous competition where the only way to win is for all other contestants to die.  But the fact that these players are not forced to play, puts this on a completely different plane.  Participants have simply decided that their odds of survival here (187-1 after the first game) is far better than their chances out in the real world.

I often felt while watching that the income inequality stuff was just a thin veneer to justify the violence and carnage.  Perhaps that’s because I’ve seen similar themes in numerous other TV shows and movies.  A few people I know in their early 20s, however, are firmly in the “insightful social commentary” camp, so maybe it’s a generational thing. 

Here's What's Wrong With TV Measurement and How to Fix It (10/21)

When it comes to national television audience measurement used for the buying and selling of commercial time, Nielsen has long been an industry-mandated monopoly.  While potential competitors have periodically emerged over the years, they have failed to sustain enough support to survive – not because Nielsen did anything to impede them, but rather because advertisers and networks have been unwilling to pay for multiple sources to provide similar national data.

There have been a number of times when various issues arose regarding how and what to measure (household meters/persons diaries, people meters, passive meters, portable meters, commercial minute ratings, out-of-home viewing), new technology and devices (VCRs, personal computers, DVRs, tablets, smartphones) or “unusual” fluctuations in reported data (such as sudden TV usage declines among households, kids, or young men).  And most recently, problems maintaining a viable sample during the pandemic.  But while there have been occasional calls for change, the industry’s unwillingness to support any real competition to Nielsen, along with networks and media agencies continuing to sign long-term Nielsen contracts, made the status quo is hard to budge.

There have been only two instances, more than 20 years apart, when Nielsen was forced to completely overhaul how it reported television audiences – in 1987, when the switch was made from the antiquated household meter/diary system to national people meters, and in 2009, when DVRs and time-shifted viewing led to the switch from program ratings to average commercial-minute ratings (C3).

How those two fundamental changes were implemented shows how much the industry’s priorities have changed over time – or really how the speed of change in the access to video content and in consumer behavior has caused good research to take a back seat to rushing new products to market.

There was a time when any change to audience measurement needed to undergo extensive vetting before the industry would consider implementing them.  People meters, for example, were evaluated by industry committees for nearly three years – including a full year of side-by-side data with the old meter/diary method – before agencies and networks decided to use it as currency.  AGB’s attempt to enter the U.S. market with people meters pressed Nielsen to develop its own system – and since AGB did not provide anything substantially different, there was no reason for the industry to pay for two essentially identical measurement services.  Of course, back then there were no compelling forces at work to make us move fast. 

VCRs had promised but never realized the idea of people programming their own viewing schedules.  Even though by the late 1990s, roughly 90% of the country owned a VCR, its major use continued to be renting or buying movies.  The average amount of actual time-shifted viewing in primetime never rose above 5%.  But even more significant, Nielsen was never able to measure VCR playback among people (although it could measure recording and playback among households – it ascribed household playback to demos).  While this did become a big deal among advertisers and agencies for a few years, the networks didn’t see it as a problem.  Nielsen eventually just said sorry, nothing we can do, and the industry moved on. 

DVRs actually changed viewer behavior and forced the industry to change.   Unlike VCRs, the DVR allowed viewers to record television shows without having to use videotape, and both recording and playback was significantly more user-friendly.  As a result, there was a substantial amount of time-shifted viewing.  Also unlike VCRs, Nielsen was able to measure playback activity.  But while VCRs had become the fastest growing electronic device since television itself, DVR ownership grew at a much slower pace.  Having been introduced by ReplayTV and TiVo in 1999, it took a decade before DVRs were even in 25% of U.S. TV homes, and another decade before it reached half the country.  Nielsen finally started including DVR households in it national people meter sample in January 2006, when the devices were in nearly 20% of homes. 

 

Commercial avoidance through fast-forwarding had become one of the biggest advertiser concerns, and measuring DVR playback and commercial ratings was now a priority.  Virtually every study and survey ever done indicated that anywhere between 70% and 80% of VCR or DVR playback involved fast-forwarding through commercials.  But there was no actual Nielsen data to prove it.

Commercial Pod studies paved the way for C3.  As the industry started to publicly grapple with how to deal with delayed DVR viewing and fast-forwarding, some media agency analyses were already underway.  My Audience Analysis group at MAGNA Global conducted extensive commercial pod studies over four consecutive years (2005-2008), examining the dynamics of commercial pod versus program performance for broadcast, cable, and syndication.  We recorded hundreds of television shows across seasons, dayparts, and genres.  We separated program segments from commercial pods for each telecast, and matched it up with Nielsen’s NPower minute-by-minute ratings.  We shared our reports with advertisers, networks, Nielsen, and the press.  These studies gave the industry confidence that commercial-minute ratings were consistent enough from year-to-year to use as marketplace currency – which led to Nielsen implementing C3 in 2009. 

Nielsen switched to C3 with virtually no research into the methodology, or whether it actually accounted for fast-forwarding. While an extensive amount of analysis went into determining whether “commercial-minute” ratings were viable to use as marketplace currency, virtually no research was done by Nielsen to determine the proper methodology for calculating them.  Speed to market was considered more important than evaluating the measurement methodology.  The MAGNA Global Commercial Pod Studies defined commercial minutes as minutes containing at least 30 seconds of commercials.  Nielsen decided to define commercial minutes as those containing even one second of commercial time – and then weight averaging those minutes based on their commercial duration to arrive at the “average commercial-minute” rating.

In 2006 and 2007, Nielsen held a series of industry-wide meetings to figure out how to report DVR playback and commercial-minute ratings. The biggest debate at the time was not on methodology, but rather on what to report.  Buyers (advertisers and their agencies) wanted only live viewing to be used as marketplace currency.  Sellers (broadcast, cable syndication) obviously wanted a full seven days of delayed DVR viewing included in the reported ratings.  The final meeting on the subject, in which the C3 compromise was established, was the first time that Nielsen had invited top research, buying, and sales executives in the same room to discuss audience measurement methodology and related business issues.  It is also the moment that Nielsen shifted away from being a pure research company – at the following year’s national client meeting, Nielsen actually proclaimed that getting a product to market was now more important than validating the research beforehand.

Those of us who were involved in the discussions on how to best measure commercial-minute ratings, recall that C3 was designed as a one- or two-year band-aid.  The industry’s major computerized pre- and post-buy analysis systems, Donovan Data and Media Bank (which have since merged to create Media Ocean), could not yet handle individual minute measurement.  They still needed audience data in the format of Nielsen’s MIT tapes, which used average ratings data.  Advertisers wanted individual commercial ratings as soon as they were feasible.  I had been working with both Donovan and Media Bank, and both did have the capability of providing pre- and post-buys based on individual minutes the following year.  

Even though research was starting to clearly demonstrate fundamental flaws in C3 measurement, we were told it didn’t really matter individual commercial measurement would soon be the marketplace currency.  I recall telling whoever would listen at the time that  given the chaos that ensued with the switch to C3, and the additional expense and staffing required to handle moving to actual commercial measurement, that C3 would likely be the end point.  That was 12 years ago.

It should also be noted that the vast majority (if not all) of Nielsen executives did not (and probably still do not) know exactly how C3 is calculated.  Many have probably forgotten, that when the “C” streams of ratings data were first made available, Nielsen sent an advisory to clients saying that you couldn’t simply subtract Live viewers from Live + 7 Days to calculate time-shifted viewing.  Since that’s what everyone was doing, and it made logical sense to do so, many of us research types started to wonder why.  It raised some uncomfortable questions about exactly how these calculations were done, because Nielsen quickly stopped saying it.  If you specifically asked them they would tell you, but otherwise they never brought it up again.

While many people think the methodology for calculating C3 takes fast-forwarding through commercials into account, and only measures exposure to the commercial minute, this is actually not entirely correct.  It has to do with the way Nielsen measures viewing to the average minute.  Rather than counting the majority of viewing to the average minute, it takes the plurality of viewing.  In other words, the channel viewers tuned to the longest during the minute.  If, for example, in a given clock minute, you are watching 20 seconds of ABC, and 10 seconds each of four other networks, you are counted as watching ABC for the entire minute.  If there is no plurality for that minute, Nielsen goes back to the previous minute and uses that plurality for both minutes.

Nielsen’s rules for allocating minute-by-minute viewing were designed for a time when virtually no one had remote control and it actually took a minute or more to get up and change the channel.  In the 1960s and 70s, plurality of viewing to a given minute was pretty much the same as viewing to the entire minute.  Individual minutes were not reported, so it didn’t matter how Nielsen measured them.  They were simply aggregated up to average program ratings.  No one ever thought about how viewing to a single minute was derived.    

When it comes to time-shifted viewing, however, the flaws in C3 methodology become apparent.  With live viewing, there are multiple channels.  During a commercial break, you can stay on that channel for 20 seconds and then scan several other channels during a given clock minute.  When you DVR a program and play it back, however, there is only one channel.  The majority and plurality of viewing are therefore the same.  If you are playing back a program, watch 20 seconds of a commercial minute and fast-forward the remaining 40 seconds, your viewing falls into something Nielsen calls AOT (“all other tuning”), and the commercial minute will receive no credit for your viewing (because both the majority and plurality of tuning is not to the commercial minute).  You would need to be tuned to the majority of a clock minute to be counted in delayed DVR viewing.  So, Nielsen’s methodology for counting live commercial minutes and delayed commercial minutes are not only different, they are both fundamentally flawed.

Nielsen still can’t accurately measure streaming, and won’t be able to until its sample reflects individual streaming service penetration and until it can measure viewing on all platforms and devices.  Netflix’s two minutes of viewing data is meaningless gibberish that tells us nothing about how many viewers are actually watching anything.  The press should stop repeating (as opposed to reporting) these bogus numbers provided by streaming services.  Is Squid Game really Netflix’s most popular series ever?  Maybe.  If ABC said 50 million people watched Grey’s Anatomy this month without any third-party verification, I doubt anyone would report it as a real number.  In reality, there are no streaming data that is anywhere near being comparable to linear ratings reported by Nielsen or ComScore.  The fact that Nielsen only reports on titles from Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, and Disney+ (it just added AppleTV+), and only measures streaming on a TV set, is an ongoing embarrassment.  Netflix has repeatedly said that Nielsen’s limited reported streaming data is “not even close” to the actual numbers. 

A number of advertisers, media agencies, and industry trade organizations have joined NBCUniversal’s Measurement Innovation Forum, which is designed to evaluate current audience measurement methodology and come up with alternatives to Nielsen.  In August, NBCU sent out a request for proposal (RFP) to more than 50 companies (including Nielsen) to help “build a new measurement ecosystem for us that reflects the future.”   Ironically, this is not in response to the basic flaws in current C3 measurement, but rather was spurred by the problems Nielsen encountered maintaining its national people meter sample during the pandemic – which resulted in reported network audience declines that seemed illogical to say the least.

This seems somewhat similar to the Council for Research Excellence (CRE).  I was one of the founding members of this group, formed in 2005, which consisted of 40 top research executives from major Nielsen clients – representing advertisers, media agencies, broadcast and cable networks, syndication companies, local television stations, and industry trade associations.  There are obviously some significant differences. 

The CRE was designed as an independently operated group, which was basically set up so Nielsen could avoid government intervention into how it measures media audiences.  It’s stated goal was to evaluate Nielsen measurement methodology and recommend ways to improve.  Nielsen funded the research at a cost of about $3.5 million per year (although having no say in the projects we undertook).  The CRE’s first major effort was the landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study, which still stands as the best original research into consumer media habits I’ve ever seen.  The study was conducted in 2008 by the Ball State University Center for Media Design and Sequent Partners.  This study cost about $2.5 million, a number simply out of the ballpark for any agency or network to conduct on its own.  At the time, it seemed as though the CRE was the only industry entity capable of doing real good independent research, designed solely to advance how audiences are measured, without any sales-related agenda or bias – in retrospect, perhaps a naïve notion.  While there were several more interesting analyses produced by the CRE over the years, it never lived up to its initial promise and Nielsen pulled funding at the end of 2017. 

The NBCU-led effort is obviously not funded by Nielsen, and it remains unclear how much any accepted proposal will cost and who will fund it.  Also unclear is whether this is designed to find an alternative to Nielsen or a supplement to Nielsen.

So, how do we “fix” TV/video audience measurement?  If the real (as opposed to PR) goal is to actually build a better system, there are three basic steps that need to be taken.  Here is my proposal to NBCUniversal’s Measurement Innovation Forum:

The first step should be to determine what current Nielsen measurement is doing right and wrong.

• Develop a sample of 300 or so industry researchers, people who are adept at detailed work and understand how audience measurement works. Nielsen (and others) would meter their TVs, DVRs, and any other video viewing capable devices they own.  They would also be given portable meters to measure their exposure to out-of-home video and audio.

• Set up several different scenarios, from the simplest to the most complex viewing environments, for what and how each participant will view video content and commercials, in-home and out-of-home during a single day.

• Participants would then log in their video and advertising viewing (down to the second). They should write down their media behavior in minute detail, what they are watching, what platforms they are using, whether they are time-shifting, when they are fast-forwarding through commercials, when they switch channels, which commercials they are seeing (and hearing), etc.

• Compare their actual viewing to what the meters report. We would then be able to address weaknesses in audience measurement, see how much real-world viewing is not being captured by current methodology, and gauge the differences between such things as commercial exposure (the opportunity to view) and actual viewing, and between individual commercial viewing and C3.

Not only will this provide, for the first time, a look at how accurate reported ratings are, but it will also tell us exactly where improvements to audience measurement need to be made (which was the original but unfulfilled purpose of the CRE).  

The second step is to determine whether samples or panels are even adequate to measure national video viewing in today’s increasingly splintered media environment.  I would argue as currently structured they are not.

• The whole purpose of a TV sample is to be representative of the total U.S., with the idea that you and your demographic cohorts have similar viewing habits. Your cohorts are determined based on characteristics that Nielsen has determined impact viewing behavior – such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, presence of children, income, education, language spoken at home, etc.  Also important is whether or not you have cable/satellite/telco (i.e., pay TV services) or DVRs.  On occasion, Nielsen has added certain things to the list, but even then, it was always with the impact on linear TV viewing in mind.

• In the past, broad platform mattered more than individual platform. In other words, whether or not you have cable does not require the sample being representative of every cable system, because that does not significantly affect viewing choices or behavior.  Nor is it important to know what type of DVR you have, since that will not really impact your viewing behavior and how much you fast-forward through commercials.  Whether or not you subscribe to streaming services, however, is not the same.  If you only have Netflix, the programming available to you, and your actual viewing habits, will be dramatically different than if you only subscribe to Paramount+.  Likewise, if you bundle Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, and add HBO Max, your viewing habits will be substantially different than if you have Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, and Apple TV+.  And there won’t just be differences in what you stream, there will be significant differences in your linear TV viewing as well.  The only way to have a meaningful television sample, is to accurately represent the total U.S. based on every possible combination of streaming service and cable/satellite/telco subscriptions.  This means that the make-up of Nielsen’s national and local samples could need to change dramatically every year.  The days when all Nielsen needed to worry about was cable and DVR penetration are gone forever.

The third step is to decide if a single source or multiple sources are preferable for measuring multiple current and future platforms.  I used to be firmly on the side of believing single-source measurement was the way to go.  I’m no longer so sure that any one company is capable of measuring all video viewing on all platforms.

A final note in the category of “be careful what you wish for” - understand that having more accurate video viewing data is likely to make few people happy.  Although advertisers do want the most accurate data, they and their agency representatives need stable (i.e., projectable) audience data in order to effectively plan and buy commercial time.  Networks, on the other hand are interested primarily in higher ratings.  While the high cost of supporting a competing national measurement service to Nielsen is one factor in continuing to only have a single currency, the main reason is that none have demonstrated they would produce higher ratings.

The only real way to put pressure on Nielsen to make fundamental changes or to actually go with an alternate measurement system is to move toward one-year contracts.  As long as all the media conglomerates continue to sign long-term 5-to-7-year deals, not much is going to change.

Does the Media Industry Really Want More Accurate Ratings? A Brief History of TV Audience Measurement (9/21)

The advertising and media industries have traditionally relied on Nielsen for national and local television audience measurement as currency for the buying and selling of commercial time (and for evaluating the video landscape).  Now it seems that several forces are at work conspiring to have this tradition come to an end – most notably, Comcast-owned NBC Universal, a long-time Nielsen critic, which recently issued a request for proposals to more than 50 companies (including Nielsen) to “build a new measurement ecosystem for us that reflects the future.”  They believe, as do many others, that current research methodologies are not able to fully measure viewers in an increasingly splintered video environment, and a single source or single metric is no longer viable.

Whether NBCU or the other media conglomerates want to actually replace Nielsen, or develop systems to operate alongside Nielsen is unclear.  But it should be clear that no advertiser or media agency in their right mind is going to accept a measurement service where the sellers have oversight into how their own audiences are measured.  There will still need be a third-party independent measurement, and Nielsen will likely continue to be a major (if not the only) player.

Before I get into a brief history of TV audience measurement and some of the issues involved, here are some basic points worth noting.

• There have been more changes to the video viewing landscape in the past 15 years than in the previous 50. Since 2005, there has been a sea change in what, where, how, and when consumers could access video content – from the introduction of Apple’s first video iPod, to the widespread use of DVRs, to the rise of social media, to the first smartphones, to the availability of multi-media devices, to the launch of multiple streaming services.  It’s hard to believe Netflix’s first hit series debuted just eight years ago.  These changes have been rapid and constant, and are making measuring video viewing and audience behavior more complex.

• Research is traditionally slow to change and adapt to shifting marketplace conditions. Before people meters brought the first major change to TV audience measurement in 30 years, the 3-network, 15-channel, one-screen, live-viewing TV world did not require much change in how viewers were counted.  This enabled Nielsen to continue trudging along without needing to innovate too much or pivot too quickly.  More than 20 years separated the two fundamental changes in national TV audience measurement (aside from sample-size increases) – the introduction of people meters in 1987 and the shift from program ratings to average commercial minute ratings (C3) in 2009.

• Nielsen is an industry-mandated monopoly. There have been several attempts by various companies to compete with Nielsen (which I discuss later in this report).  Except for ComScore, none have managed to pose any real threat to Nielsen’s dominance.  While they have served to pressure Nielsen to make improvements to its own service, the industry (both buyers and sellers) has balked at funding two audience measurement companies that would essentially provide the same thing.  While everyone likes to complain about Nielsen, so far few have wanted to spend the money required to really do much about it or foster any real competition.

• Does anyone really want the most accurate ratings possible? Advertisers obviously should, but I would argue that neither buyers nor sellers do.  Sellers want higher ratings, buyers want stability – accuracy is conducive to neither. 

 

• Sellers want higher ratings – you never hear any network complain that Nielsen is overcounting their audience (although for years it did). Back when we were evaluating AGB, as soon as I saw that they were not producing higher ratings than Nielsen, I knew that network support would fade.  And why have some networks pushed so hard for viewing in bars and restaurants to be included in currency measurement?  Certainly not because they provide an accurate portrayal of commercial exposure.  Higher reported ratings. 

• Buyers want stability – accuracy is fine, but stability is required to be able to project future performance. Anyone who was in a media agency research group when the industry switched over to buying and selling based on C3 remembers the chaos that ensued during the upfront and for much of that year.  There’s a reason that what was supposed to be a “one-year band-aid” is still being used 12 years later.  Moving to more accurate commercial measurement would require not only additional staff, but would result in significantly less stable and projectable ratings.

Here’s a brief look at some of the issues the industry has been grappling with for years…

Current Measurement is Not Nimble Enough to Handle Rapid Change

Until the early 2000s, the pace of change to how and where viewers received content was relatively slow, enabling cumbersome media measurement conglomerates to trudge along with serviceable audience measurement. 

It’s hard to imagine now, but before people meters debuted in 1987, the national Nielsen television sample was only 1,200 homes, and demographic data was only available 36 weeks of the year.  In a three-network, one-screen, single platform, 15-channel, live-viewing world, this was acceptable.  People generally had the same access to the same channels and devices, and as cohesive groups of people aged, their media habits were largely predictable.

Here’s a brief look at how the video media landscape has evolved since then:

• During the late 1980s, VCRs started to become prevalent, eventually being owned by 90% of U.S. TV households. Watching pre-recorded videocassettes became the first major new use of the television set since videogames.  This contributed to the broadcast networks giving up on original scripted series on Saturday nights (which was now the biggest movie rental night).  They subsequently cut back on airing made-for-tv and theatrical movies as well.  Time-shifted viewing, now possible for the first time, remained relatively minor (about 5% of overall primetime viewing).

The home VCR became the fastest growing electronic device since television itself, and caused real problems for audience measurement.  It marked the first time Nielsen had to admit it couldn’t measure an element of television viewing.  It was able to capture VCR recording, but playback among individual people remained beyond its scope.

• In 1990, the average home could still only receive 33 channels. Viewing habits remained relatively stable, and aside from VCR usage, there weren’t many major challenges to audience measurement.  During the early-to-mid 1990s, as cable and satellite television expanded, and phone companies were allowed into the TV business, the number of channels available to the average home began to rise sharply.

• In the late 1990s, DVRs became a reality, but growth was considerably slower than it had been for VCRs. It would take another decade before DVRs were even in 20 percent of the country and needed to be addressed in developing television samples for audience measurement.

• Prior to 2005, changes to the media landscape – what was available to view and how it could be viewed – were gradual. Most people wound up getting the same access to almost everything.  The slow pace of change made predicting consumer television viewing habits relatively simple, and slow-to-change research companies didn’t have to pivot too quickly, nor innovate too often.

• Since then, rapid change has been the norm – from the introduction of Apple’s first video iPod in 2005, to social media led by Facebook and Twitter in 2006, to the first iPhone in 2007, to the launch of Netflix and Hulu in 2008/2009, to the first iPad in 2010.

• Netflix’s first original scripted hit (House of Cards) debuted just over eight years ago, in 2013. Prime Video released its first original scripted series the same year (Alpha House and Betas). Hulu debuted its first successful original scripted series in 2013 as well, with the teen drama, East Los High.  Other subscription video on demand services followed.  CBS All Access (now Paramount+) debuted in 2015.  In late 2019, Disney+ and Apple TV+ joined the mix, followed by HBO Max and Peacock in mid-2020.  The eight major streaming services are now spending at least as much on original programming each year as the five broadcast networks combined.  There are also several niche streaming services available to viewers.  Today the average home can receive more than 200 channels and subscribes to three or four streaming services.

Can Samples Even Measure the TV Universe Anymore?

Unless they are representative of the total U.S. population based on subscriptions to individual streaming services, and combinations of streaming services, Nielsen samples can’t accurately measure TV viewing anymore.

The whole purpose of a TV sample is to be representative of the total U.S., with the idea that you and your demographic cohorts have similar viewing habits.  Your cohorts are determined based on characteristics that Nielsen has determined impact viewing behavior – such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, presence of children, income, education, language spoken at home, etc.  Also important is whether or not you have cable/satellite/telco (i.e., pay TV services) or DVRs.

In the past, broad platform mattered more than individual platform.  In other words, whether or not you have cable does not require the sample being representative of every cable system, because that does not significantly affect viewing choices or behavior.  Nor is it important to know what type of DVR you have, since that will not substantially impact your viewing behavior and how much you fast-forward through commercials. 

Whether or not you subscribe to streaming services, however, is not the same.  If you only have Netflix, the programming available to you, and your actual viewing habits, will be dramatically different than if you only subscribe to Paramount+.  Likewise, if you bundle Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, and add HBO Max, your viewing habits will be different than if you have Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, and Apple TV+.  And there won’t just be differences in what you stream, there will be significant differences in your linear TV viewing as well.  The only way to have a meaningful television sample, is to accurately represent the total U.S. based on every possible combination of streaming service and cable/satellite/telco subscriptions.  This means that the make-up of Nielsen’s national and local samples could need to change dramatically every year.  The days when all Nielsen needed to worry about was cable and DVR penetration are gone forever.

Why Virtually All Attempts to Compete with Nielsen Fail

Over the years, there have been a number of unsuccessful attempts by other companies to compete – both on a national and local basis – not because Nielsen did anything in particular to impede them, but rather because the industry didn’t provide support long enough for them to be viable.  The most common result has been to pressure Nielsen into making improvements to its own methodology and increase its sample size.  

Here’s a brief look at the most notable previous attempts to compete with Nielsen.

• In 1985, after more than 30 years of being essentially unchallenged in the national TV audience measurement arena, British company AGB entered the game and posed the first real threat to Nielsen’s dominance. It had been using something called people meters in Europe, and saw an opportunity to expand into the U.S. market.  AGB had the advantage of actually using a better methodology than Nielsen’s antiquated meter/diary approach. 

AGB spent nearly two years testing its people meter in Boston before trying to roll it out nationally.  Nielsen responded by launching its own people meter, and increased its sample from 1,200 to 2,000 homes (to match the size of AGB’s sample).  The following year Nielsen increased its sample to 4,000.  As a result, AGB was only able to sign up one broadcast network (CBS, which had long been a Nielsen critic) and a few ad agencies.  I remember one of my first major decisions as Manager of Broadcast Research at a major ad agency was whether to continue supporting AGB (we had paid the first-round ask of $25,000, but balked at the second-round request).  Without widespread industry support, AGB ceased its U.S. operation in 1988.  The main problem was that ad agencies were not willing to pay for two identical national measurement services, and the networks were not willing to support a new ratings system that did not report higher numbers than Nielsen.

• In 1987, D. Percy & Co. developed a passive meter, which used a heat-sensitive, infrared device to detect when someone was in front of the television set and when someone left the room. But when people found out that the heat sensors could be thrown off by the presence of a large dog, jokes ensued, and any potential support fizzled.  Nielsen announced its own plans to develop a passive meter, which never came to fruition.

• In 1991, Arbitron’s ScanAmerica was way ahead of its time as it tried to marry TV viewing to product usage (sample participants were asked to run a “scanner wand” over the product code on each store-bought item). This single-source approache seemed to be what advertisers had been seeking.  Once again, CBS was the first broadcast network to support an attempt to compete with Nielsen.  Unfortunately, no other network, only one ad agency, and just a handful of advertisers, were willing to provide funding – a lack of belief in the methodology, the limited number of “scannable” items,  and an unwillingness to invest in an unproven system, were cited as the main reasons.  Without industry support, Arbitron could no longer afford to continue with the system, and ScanAmerica shut down in late 1992, only a year after being introduced.  Had ScanAmerica come along a few years later, when the economy was back on track and other viewing sources were cutting into network ratings, it might have received more interest.    

• Arbitron, which had been competing with Nielsen for four decades in collecting local TV ratings (in roughly 200 markets) canceled the service in 1993. Local stations, which had been forced to subscribe to both Nielsen and Arbitron to accommodate advertisers and their agencies, who were more or less equally divided among the two services, were under increasing economic pressure from cable and other competition.  It no longer made financial sense for them to support two essentially identical rating systems.  Nielsen, which already had a lock on national TV measurement, won the day.  Nielsen acquired Arbitron (renamed Nielsen Audio) in 2013.

• In 1993, the broadcast networks tried to develop a rival rating service, SMART (System for Measuring and Reporting Television), with a new people meter provided by Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI). But they couldn’t get the necessary ad-agency support and it never got beyond the “media lab” stage (I thought at the time SRI did great work and provided valuable insights).  It folded in 1997. 

• erinMedia’s plan to launch a new national ratings system to collect and process viewing data from set-top boxes was derailed in 2005 when Nielsen announced it was forming a new unit to essentially do the same thing (which caused erinMedia’s funding to disappear). erinMedia filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Nielsen Media in 2005, which was confidentially settled in 2008.

• In 2009, NBC was the driving force behind a consortium of companies, which included the four major broadcast networks, some large cable companies, along with several big advertisers and media agencies, in an effort to back a potential new competitor to Nielsen. I don’t recall specifically what happened with this effort, but no new Nielsen rival emerged – although it did contribute to Nielsen finally measuring DVR homes, more screens, and commercial minute ratings (C3).

So, when it comes to national television audience measurement, Nielsen remains a virtual monopoly, albeit an industry-mandated one.  Nielsen ensures its monopoly status, with its clients’ approval, by continually signing long-term staggered contracts with networks and media agencies.  This means any fledgling measurement company cannot actually replace Nielsen, but must operate side-by-side (at least for several years).  Since the industry has long been loath to support two essentially identical rating services, particularly for national currency measurement, Nielsen has continued to operate virtually unopposed.

Today, ComScore, which merged with Rentrak in 2016, stands as the only real competition to Nielsen – primarily with local TV stations.  Most major media agencies, networks, station groups, and streaming services subscribe to some level of ComScore data.  And given the current situation (outlined below), the company is probably feeling good about the possibility of expanding its footprint.

The MRC Suspends Nielsen Accreditation:  So?

This should be a very big deal, but so far the industry isn’t acting that way.  While researchers are familiar with the Media Rating Council (MRC), until fairly recently, most of the folks who actually buy and sell media had little contact with or knowledge about the company.  The MRC was formed at the behest of the U.S. government following the 1950s quiz-show scandals.  It conducts audits of companies that measure media to basically determine whether they do what they claim to do and are in compliance with industry standards.

Even before the pandemic, and the VAB’s (the TV network industry trade group) claim that Nielsen was dramatically undercounting television usage, I had written about how the rise of multiple streaming platforms and the fact that the average home subscribes to at least three streaming services, resulted in Nielsen no longer being able to capture the full scope of television viewing.

Combine this with clear examples of problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic, when Nielsen field agents could not enter its 40,000 national television homes to conduct regular maintenance of its sample.  The VAB claims this resulted in significantly lower reported total weekly reach levels than pre-pandemic (from 92% to 87% - which is an unprecedented single-season drop when not changing measurement methodology), and major viewing declines among the TV networks, (in the neighborhood of 20%).  Neither seems reasonable at a time when virtually everyone was confined to their homes.

The VAB asked the Media Rating Council (MRC) to suspend its accreditation of Nielsen’s TV data.  Nielsen, in a curious move, said it wanted a temporary “hiatus” from MRC accreditation so it can better “focus on innovating our core products, continuing to deliver data that the industry can rely on and ultimately creating a better media future for the entire industry.”  This seemed designed to avoid getting bogged down in a process that could only provide negative publicity for Nielsen, which hoped to distract the industry into focusing more on such things as wearable portable meters, as well as its new Nielsen One service, which promises total cross-platform measurement. 

It would be far worse for the MRC to independently revoke accreditation than for Nielsen to voluntarily suspend it on its own.  The MRC responded saying that a company needed its approval to suspend accreditation, and that this issue was so serious that it “requires further consideration by the full MRC board.”  It also noted that Nielsen’s National Television Service had some “deep-rooted ongoing performance issues” that threatened it accreditation status even before the pandemic.  As I was writing this, the MRC announced that it was indeed suspending Nielsen’s accreditation. 

This won’t necessarily have much impact on whether the industry continues to use Nielsen data, but it does open the door to other companies, such as ComScore, to argue that Nielsen is no longer the “gold standard.”   ComScore has reportedly asked the MRC to move its own upcoming audit for its service from early 2022 to October 2021. 

More importantly, it lends credence to the idea that  transparency, innovation, and new measurement yardsticks are urgently needed in an industry that has been traditionally slow to make any substantial change.  The switch from meter/diary to people meters and the shift from program ratings to C3 were more than 20 years apart.  The next five years could see more innovation in TV/video currency measurement than the past 50 years.  Nielsen will certainly have a major role in this, but not the only role.  On the other hand, we’ve heard talk like this before.  Let’s see what happens when buyers and sellers have to agree on not only what needs to be changed, but how it’s going to be funded.

What the Industry Needs to Do to Improve Audience Measurement

The first thing that needs to be done is to get a handle on what current rating services can and cannot accurately measure.  While this might sound logical and simple, I can’t remember this ever being done (outside of the old telephone coincidental days).  Even when the industry took the major step of moving to commercial minute measurement (C3) in 2009, there was precious little analysis done into the methodology Nielsen uses to calculate these ratings.

The only good attempt to get some of these answers was in the Council for Research Excellence’s (CRE) landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study in 2007-08.  I was co-Chair of the CRE’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee, which commissioned the study.  One of the lesser-known findings was that Nielsen’s overall usage levels of households and broad demographic segments, such as total viewers and adults 18-49 were remarkably similar to the observed viewing behavior in our sample.  Once you started to look at narrower age groups, however, the reported Nielsen data started to stray significantly from the observed viewing data.  And this was just overall TV usage levels, not individual program ratings (and was 13 years ago, before video viewing was nearly as splintered as it is today).  DVR penetration was barely 20% of the U.S., and there were no streaming services.  At the time, I suggested we replicate the study every five years, but that never happened – primarily because it was so expensive, and the CRE had other priorities.

It is actually not that difficult to figure out how accurate current TV measurement is.  When I was on the CRE, I proposed a methodology for gauging how accurate Nielsen was at measuring an increasingly fragmented video viewing environment.  Nielsen didn’t want to have anything to do with it then, but the industry should consider it now. 

Here’s what you need to do: 

• Develop a sample of 100 or so of the top researchers in the industry (buyers, sellers, advertisers), who are adept at detailed work and understand how audience measurement works. Nielsen (and others) would meter their TVs, DVRs, smartphones, and any other video viewing capable devices they own.  They would also be given portable meters to measure their exposure to out-of-home video and audio.

• Set up several different viewing scenarios for what and how each participant will view video content and commercials during a single day.

• Participants would then log in their video and advertising viewing (down to the second).

• Compare their actual viewing to what the meters report. We would then be able to see and address weaknesses in audience measurement, see how much real-world viewing is not being captured by current methodology, and gauge the differences between such things as exposure (the opportunity to view) and actual viewing, and between individual commercial viewing and C3.

This will tell us what the industry needs to do next.  It would be a good idea to have Nielsen, ComScore, and a few other companies involved.  The project could be overseen by a group of retired research executives or some well-respected company with no current skin in the game.

Until something like this is done, all this talk will be little more than the sellers trying to get higher ratings, or moving away from just measuring eyeballs to the even more difficult to measure behavioral and attentiveness data (which everyone has been discussing for years).  There has always been a tendency to start focusing on the next shiny object before actually fixing what is still the biggest piece of the pie – in-home viewing to video screens.  But if we don’t get that right, measuring real cross-platform viewing will remain out of reach.

We should be clear about one thing, however.  Despite claims to the contrary, neither buyers nor sellers have traditionally wanted accurate audience measurement.  Sellers want higher ratings and buyers want stability (so they can project future performance).  Accurate ratings are conducive to neither.  Anytime you really improve audience measurement, the highest rated vehicles tend to decline and the lowest rate tend to increase.  And when you get more granular data, it will tend to be less stable from day to day or week to week.  Individual commercial ratings will almost certainly be less stable and projectable than C3.

You only need to look at what happened with C3 ratings to understand what’s going on.  The stated goal of advertisers and agencies has always been drilling down to actual commercial audiences.  The reason why average commercial minutes were used as a surrogate was ostensibly because the computer systems that processed Nielsen ratings for pre- and post-buys (at the time, Donovan Data Systems and Datatech) were unable to report actual minute-by-minute ratings.  

Implementing C3 instead of actual commercial or commercial pod ratings was a good excuse for agencies, which would have needed to hire extensive additional staff to deal with reams of more granular data, with little stability in reported numbers (making projections of future performance much more complex).  It was a good excuse for advertisers, who otherwise might have the creative execution blamed for poor individual commercial ratings.  It was also a good excuse for sellers, since we all did extensive research that indicated C3 ratings, as measured by Nielsen, would not be far off from the live program ratings it had previously reported (which, of course, is logical hooey – there is no way you can tell me that viewers are watching just commercial minutes, even over three days, at the same degree as those watching the actual program at the time it airs – that would mean most DVR users are not fast-forwarding through commercials, which is ridiculous).

C3 was planned as a one- or two-year band-aid until the industry’s pre- and post-buy systems were able to process more granular data.  I worked with both Donovan and Datatech, and they had this capability the following year.  That was 11 years ago.

So What Happens Next?

That’s a good question.  I doubt whether the industry will follow my proposal to discover the actual weaknesses in current audience measurement techniques.  That would require fixing them, which would be expensive, time-consuming, and not necessarily supply the answers anyone wants to deal with.  So, if past is prologue, we’ll probably see more talk and several new proposals on how to “better” measure video and cross-platform viewing.  New companies will come in with innovative techniques for measuring the video landscape (or portions of it), but won’t get the funding they need to go through the year-long (or more) scrutiny the industry will require.  Nielsen will make some changes to how it operates – and possibly re-submit for MRC accreditation (unless the advertisers strangely continue to not be bothered by any of this).  If the media conglomerates sign long-term contracts with Nielsen during the next round, we’ll know most of this was just talk.  If they take a page out of the NFL’s playbook, and sign a one-year deal, making a measurement service prove itself, then maybe real change will happen.

A Brief History of Superheroes on TV (9/21)

Superheroes and sci-fi are more popular than ever, as anyone who attends the giant annual comic-cons in San Diego (July) and New York (October) can attest. They both consistently draw 150,000 attendees or more.  There are also numerous smaller comic-con events throughout the country, ranging anywhere from a few thousand to 100,000+ attendees.  Once considered niche, with very limited appeal, these have become major pop-culture events – but still have a strong focus on sci-fi and superheroes.  DC’s Batman and Wonder Woman movies, as well as  Marvel’s many mega-successful cinematic efforts, which began with Captain America and the Avengers, have shown that there are large audiences for these stories. 

The trick has become appealing to the hard-core fans who are well-versed in more than 60 years of comic-book canon, as well as new fans with only a passing or no familiarity with the characters’ backstories or superhero mythology.

From the earliest days of television, series featuring superheroes have had their ups and downs.  While occasionally popping up in the 1960s through early 2000s, most often as one network tried to counter-program and appeal to a younger audience, the creation of the CW network, along with the advent of streaming platforms, and the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has led to a rebirth of the superhero genre.

The two major superhero factories, DC and Marvel, have traditionally appealed to different types of audiences, although there is some overlap.  The DC universe has always been in a different reality from our own, with names of major cities having generic fictional names, such as Metropolis, Gotham City, Central City, Star City, National City, etc.  Until 2008, with the release The Dark Knight Batman movies, DC was traditionally geared more to kids and teens than adults.  The Marvel universe, on the other hand, takes place in our world, with many of the superheroes living in New York City.  Marvel’s tendency to have flawed characters with stories focused on real-world problems has tended to appeal to more of a teen/young adult audience – both in comic books and on the screen.

Since Adventures of Superman, starring George Reeves, which aired in syndication from 1952-58, most superhero shows on television featured major DC characters.  They were always G rated, and were relatively low budget with limited special effects.  All superhero shows on TV prior to 2000 were designed for family viewing.  Seldom, if ever, did they address any social or political issues of the day.  Nor did they feature people of color (if you don’t count green).

Batman (ABC,1966-68), starring Adam West and Burt Ward, was designed with kids in mind, but its well-known weekly guest stars camping it up as villains appealed to adults as well – Cesar Romero as the Joker, Burgess Meredith as the Penguin, Frank Gorshin as the Riddler, Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt as Catwoman, to name just a few.  It aired twice a week for its first two seasons, and weekly for its third.  Viewers were reminded to tune in next week at the “same bat time, and same bat channel.”

From the 1970s through the 1990s, there were only a handful of superhero shows on TV, primarily because they were not seen as appealing to a broad enough audience to generate strong ratings.  We had Shazam (CBS, 1974-76), starring Nichael Gray, Wonder Woman (ABC, 1975-79), starring Lynda Carter, the syndicated Superboy (1988-92), starring Gerard Christopher, The Flash (CBS, 1990-91), starring John Wesley Shipp, and Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (ABC, 1993-97), starring Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. 

Pre-2000, there were just two live-action series based on Marvel superheroes.  The Amazing Spider-Man (CBS, 1977-79), starring Nicholas Hammond, and The Incredible Hulk (CBS 1977-82), with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno playing scientist Bruce Banner and his big green alter-ego, respectively. 

Other live-action superhero series, not affiliated with DC or Marvel, all on ABC, included, The Green Hornet (1966-67), with Van Williams in the title role and Bruce Lee as his sidekick, Kato, The Six Million Dollar Man (1973-78), starring Lee Majors, Lindsay Wagner in The Bionic Woman (1976-78), and William Katt as The Greatest American Hero (1981-83). 

The modern era of superhero TV series began when the WB network (now CW) aired Smallville (2001-11), which provides a look at Superman’s life as a boy in the fictional town of Smallville, Kansas The series starts out as a young-adult high-school drama, before

Superman dons his uniform, when he is only known as Clark Kent (Tom Welling).  Eventually the series moves into his adult world where he gets a reporter job at the Daily Planet, working alongside Lois Lane.  Various DC Comics superheroes and villains are introduced throughout the series.

The WB tried to follow up the success of Smallville, with the one-season wonder, Birds of Prey (2002-03).  After the Joker kills Catwoman (Maggie Baird) and leaves Batgirl (Dina Meyer) in a wheel chair, Batman, grieving over the loss of his secret love, Catwoman, leaves New Gotham to fend for itself.  Batgirl takes on a new identity as “Oracle” and mentors the secret daughter of Batman and Catwoman, “Huntress” (Ashley Scott)  A third young woman with psychic abilities, Dinah (Rachel Skarsten), joins them and they become the Birds of Prey – committed to defeating the Joker and Gotham’s other criminals.  Had this debuted today, it might well have become a hit.

Fox did for the Batman mythology what the WB/CW did for Superman, when it debuted Gotham (2014-19).  This series provides a look at the largely corrupt Gotham City and a young Bruce Wayne (David Mazouz), as he seeks revenge for the murder of his billionaire parents.  He is assisted by a young police detective, Jim Gordon (Ben McKenzie) before he becomes Commissioner, and his butler, Alfred.  The series also focuses on the origins of his ally/adversary, Catwoman, and several well-known villains, such as Penguin, Riddler, and Joker (all more sinister incarnations than in previous Batman series).

Just as Smallville was coming to an end, the CW was about to unveil a whole new slate of superhero shows that would soon be known as the Arrowverse.  The name derives from the first series of the group.  All of the CW heroes exist in the same shared continuity, which enables cross-over appearances among the various series.  The CW shows are also notable for their diversity and inclusion, with people of color and LGBTQ+ characters in central or leading roles.

Arrow (2012-2020), which is based on the DC Comics character Green Arrow, stars Stephen Arnell as Oliver Queen, a billionaire playboy who was shipwrecked on a mysterious island for five years.  When he returns home to Star City, he fights crime and corruption in his secret identity as the vigilante known as Arrow (his weapon of choice is a bow and arrow).  Throughout the series, various other characters join him, forming Team Arrow, which continues to fight an array of bad guys.

 

Over the next decade, the CW debuted several other superhero series based on DC Comics characters.

 

The first series to spin off from Arrow was The Flash (2014-present), with Grant Gustin as the speedster. When a new scientific invention called a particle accelerator causes an explosion at S.T.A.R. labs, it creates a freak storm, and crime-scene investigator Barry Allen is struck by lightning.  He awakens from a coma nine months later to discover he now has super speed.  When he realizes that others have also gained powers from the explosion and use them for evil, he dedicates himself to protecting the innocent citizens of Central City, and hunting these other “metahumans.”  His super-speed allows him to occasionally move through time and parallel worlds, often with dire or unexpected consequences.  As is the case with Arrow, The Flash has a team of friends, scientists, and heroes to help him.

Superman was not the only one to escape from the planet Krypton before it was destroyed. Supergirl (2015-21), starring Melissa Benoist, focuses on his cousin Kara, who was sent to earth as a 13-year-old.  She was raised by foster parents, has a human sister, and now works as a reporter in National City.  Her adoptive sister is a government agent, whom she works with to bring bad guys to justice.  Several heroes and villains are introduced throughout the series, including Martian Manhunter, Mon-El, and Brainiac-5, a member of the Legion of Superheroes from the 31^st Century. 

Supergirl is actually from a parallel earth within the multiverse to the one where Flash and Arrow reside.  While on their world, metahumans are the biggest threat, on Supergirl’s earth, the biggest threats are aliens from other planets.  On several occasions, they have been able to cross over between worlds to help one another.  Supergirl debuted on CBS, but moved to the CW network for its second season.

Legends of Tomorrow (2016-present) consists of a ragtag team of heroes and villains recruited by rogue time traveler, Rip Hunter (Arthur Darvill), who venture through time in a stolen time ship known as the Waverider, protecting the timeline from aberrations.  There are continued conflicts among the Legends and various bureaus who are in charge of protecting the timeline.  The Legends include, Sara Lance/White Canary (Caity Lotz), Ray Palmer/Atom (Brandon Routh), Mick Rory/Heat Wave (Dominic Purcell), Nate Heywood/Steel (Nick Zano), Zari Omaz (Tala Ashe), John Constantine (Matt Ryan), and Ava Sharpe (Jes Macallan), as well as several other recurring characters.

Legends of Tomorrow is one of the first superhero series to have gay characters in central roles, including the leader of the team.

Cress Williams stars Jefferson Pierce, also known as the electricity-powered Black Lightning (2018-2021).  As the series begins, he is a legendary retired African-American superhero, now a high-school principal in Freeland, Georgia.  He’s forced out of retirement when his city and his daughters are threatened by a fearsome criminal gang.  His daughters Anissa (Nafessa Williams) and Jennifer (China Anne McClain) start developing powers of their own and join him as Thunder and Lightning.

Three years after Batman mysteriously disappeared from Gotham City, Bruce Wayne’s cousin, Kate Kane (Ruby Rose) picks up the mantle, becoming Batwoman (2019-present).  After season 1, Ruby Rose left the show for personal reasons, and with Kate Kane out of the picture, Ryan Wilder (Javicia Leslie) steps into her boots and becomes the new female vigilante.  Batwoman is assisted in her crimefighting by Kate Kane/s stepsister, medical student Mary (Nicole Kang) and Luke Fox (Camrus Johnson), son of Wayne Enterprise’s tech guru, Lucian Fox.

In season 1, Ruby Rose became the first openly gay superhero in a title role, while in season 2, Javicia Leslie was the first Black woman to have the lead in a superhero TV series.

Stargirl (2020-present), stars Brec Bassinger as high-school student Courtney Whitmore, who inspires a new generation of young misfits to become heroes and form a new version of the Justice Society of America (JSA) – most of the original supergroup members were killed a decade earlier in battle with the Injustice Society of America.  Courtney had discovered the Cosmic Staff of one of the JSA heroes, Starman.  When she learns her stepfather used to be Starman’s sidekick, she decides to form the new group.  

Tyler Hoechlin and Bitsie Tulloch star as Superman & Lois (2021-present), in this new take on the Man of Steel.  After years of fighting supervillains and alien invaders, Clark Kent and famed journalist Lois Lane, leave the big city of Metropolis to return to his small rural hometown of Smallville to raise their two teenage boys (Jordan Elsass, Alexander Garlin), one of whom has emerging super powers of his own.  The show balances superheroing, high-school drama, and parenting in today’s society. 

There have been a number of cross-over events where these characters interact and battle major threats to the city, planet, or universe.  So far, only Stargirl has yet to be involved in these cross-overs, but that is reportedly coming at some point.  The biggest cross-over event was during the 2019-20 season, which incorporated virtually every character in the Arrowverse, as well as a few from the DC theatrical universe (the first time the two universes acknowledged one another).  For example, Ezra Miller’s Flash from the Justice League movies appeared alongside Grant Gustin’s Flash from the CW series.  The cross-over event ended with the Multiverse being rebooted so that all these superheroes share the same world.

Numerous other DC heroes without their own individual series have been introduced within the Arrowverse, including, Martian Manhunter, Atom, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Black Canary, Kid Flash, Speedy, Hourman, Mon-El, Brainiac-5, Vixen, Dr. Mid-Nite, the Legion of Superheroes, and the Justice Society of America.

These shows pretty much have straightforward comic-book style good guy versus bad guy storylines that are more-or-less suited for the entire family.  Most of the CW superhero shows have diverse casts, some with Black lead heroes, and several that feature LGBTQ+ characters.

Over the years, Marvel had done little more than dip its toes into the superhero waters of live-action television series.  But with a new phase of blockbuster theatrical movies, starting with Iron Man in 2008, Captain America: The First Avenger in 2011, and The Avengers in 2012, it was about to hit the small screen with considerable force.

Debuting a little more than a year after the first Avengers theatrical movie, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (ABC 2013-20) was the first television series to cross over from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  S.H.I.E.L.D. (Strategic Homeland Intervention and Logistics Division) is a peacekeeping and spy organization tasked with protecting the world from hostile forces around the globe and beyond. 

This team of agents is led by Phil Coulson (Clark Greg), who was resurrected after apparently being killed by Loki in the first Avengers movie in 2012.  The series deals with Hydra (and the ramifications from Captain America: Winter Soldier), as well as introducing us to Marvel comics characters, the Inhumans, and alien species such as the Kree, and the Chronicoms. 

People die and are revived, they travel into space and through time, and enter alternate timelines.  Chloe Bennet portrays Daisy Johnson, aka Quake, a powerful Inhuman who joins S.H.I.E.L.D. Ming-Na Wen, Henry Simmons, Ian De Caestecker, Elizabeth Henstridge, and Natalia Cordova-Buckley round out the team.

In 2015, when Netflix was starting to become a media force and Disney+ was not even a glimmer in its parents’ eyes, Marvel entered into a deal with Netflix to develop series featuring some of its lesser-known “street-level” heroes.  Unlike the world-saving superhero teams (such as the Avengers, X-Men, and Fantastic Four), these characters have grittier, more personal stories, which better lend themselves to series-long plotlines – as opposed to one- or two-part blockbuster movies.  They protect their own cities or neighborhoods, rather than getting involved in planet-saving exploits. 

All of the Netflix Marvel series are significantly more violent and graphic than their TV predecessors, and contain sexual situations that were simply unimaginable in previous superhero shows. 

The heroes themselves are different from most other superheroes on TV as well.  They are haunted by events from their past, and are flawed characters, struggling with what it means to be a “hero.”  There was also a miniseries featuring the four Netflix heroes who came to be known as The Defenders – Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist, who were brought together to battle a shadowy global conspiracy.

When Daredevil (2015-18) debuted on Netflix, it raised the bar for superhero storytelling on TV. Charlie Cox is Matt Murdoch/Daredevil – blind lawyer by day, vigilante crimefighter by night.  While he has no actual superpowers, he has ninja-like fighting skills and heightened senses to make up for his lack of sight. 

He is conflicted and haunted by events in his past, and struggles with the violence he is forced to inflict on the bad guys.  The fight choreography (check out the hallway fight sequence from season 1, the battle toward the end of season 2, and the prison gym fight in season 3) is well beyond anything I’ve seen on television.  His constant concern – at what point do you become what you are fighting?  Instilling fear into those who would threaten his rough New York City neighborhood, he is known as “the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen.”   This series also introduces us to The Punisher, one of Marvel comics most popular characters.

Netflix followed up Daredevil with Jessica Jones (2015-19), which has the distinction of being Marvel’s first female lead and title character in either television or movies.  Krysten Ritter stars as the reluctant hero, working as a private detective out of her Hell’s Kitchen apartment in New York City.  She has extraordinary strength, received through an experimental medical procedure that saved her life when her family was killed in a car crash. 

Jessica Jones shatters the mold of typical female TV protagonists by presenting a strong, brooding, independent woman on her own, who plays by her own rules.  She’s flawed, she swears, she drinks too much, and she has indiscriminate and casual sex on her own terms – the type of female character you rarely if ever see on television.  She’s a hero and a victim (who doesn’t need to be saved by a man).  The series is a strong commentary on male/female relationships and the abuse of privilege and power, focusing on such topics as addiction, rape, retaliation, revenge, and redemption – subject matter seldom dealt with on television, and not at all in the Marvel universe at large. 

Most of the strong, independent characters in Jessica Jones are women – including Rachael Taylor as her best friend Trish “Patsy” Walker, Carrie-Anne Moss as a high-powered attorney who has helped Jessica out of several jams, and Janet McTeer as her mom.  Notably, roles often played by women, the assistant, the girlfriend (in this case boyfriend), and the sidekick, are reserved for men.  All 13 episodes in its second season have female directors. 

 Luke Cage (2016-18) was the first Black superhero to be featured as a protagonist and title character of a comic book (first appearing in 1972).  This is an updated version, with Mike Colter in the title role as the quietly confident reluctant hero with super strength and unbreakable, bulletproof skin (caused by a sabotaged medical experiment when he was in prison after being wrongfully convicted). 

His plans to live a quiet life do not go as planned, as bad guys, some linked to his past, force him out of the shadows to fight crime and corruption in his city.  He is celebrated on the streets where he lives as “the Hero of Harlem.”  But new threats emerge, forcing him to question what it really means to be a hero. 

 

Luke Cage is different from other superhero series (and most television dramas), as it features a mostly Black cast, as well as numerous cultural references and visual images – bringing a socially conscious and fresh perspective to a genre in which it has been sorely lacking.  At a time when images of violence against Black men and women are more common than ever, watching an African-American man impervious to bullets and dispatching gun-toting assailants, should appeal to many viewers who have seldom, if ever, seen people who look like them in these roles.

Iron Fist (2017-18) stars Finn Jones stars as Daniel Rand, who was presumed dead in a mysterious plane crash that claimed the lives of his billionaire parents.  In truth, he was rescued by warrior monks, and he grew up in the mystical city of K’un-Lun, which is only accessible to the outside world every 15 years.  He was trained in martial arts to become a fierce warrior, eventually becoming “the immortal Iron Fist,” protector of K’un-Lun and fighter of evil forces.  Fifteen years later, he returns home to New York City to reconnect with his past and take his rightful place at the head of his family’s company, where he has to face off with numerous bad guys.  This is the weakest and least popular of the Netflix Marvel series,

Marvel’s most violent antihero, Frank Castle, known throughout New York City as The Punisher (2017-19), is played by Jon Bernthal.  He’s a former special forces marine, who, in the first season, is seeking vengeance on those who murdered his family.  He is cunning, ruthless, and brutal, and makes previous theatrical movie versions of the character seem tame and one-dimensional by comparison.  Unlike other Marvel vigilantes, he has no qualms or remorse about the high body counts he leaves in his lurch.  Although he has interacted with Daredevil, The Punisher is not part of the Defenders.

Other series based on Marvel characters have recently aired on Disney-owned ABC, Freeform, and Hulu, as well as Fox and FX (before Disney acquired 20^th Century Fox assets).  These were produced by Marvel’s television unit and were canceled once its film division took over and Disney+ was becoming a reality.

Marvel’s Runaways (Hulu 2017-2019): Lots of teenagers think their parents are evil, but in this case they really are.  A group of six diverse high-school students, with varying degrees of enhanced abilities, must band together to fight their parents, who may be part of an otherworldly threat to humankind.  The kids are classmates, who grew up together because their parents were friends.  When the kids discover their parents have been responsible for unspeakable deeds, and are part of a secret organization called The Pride, they band together to further investigate.  Are their parents actually evil, or are they being manipulated by outside malevolent forces?

Inhumans (ABC 2017) are evolutionary advanced humans with physical abilities far beyond normal people, who live in a secret city on the Moon (hidden from human eyes).  When they come of age, they enter something called the Terrigen Mist which can substantially enhance (and sometimes reduce) these abilities.  The Inhumans are led by the Royal Family – Black Bolt, Medusa, Karnak, Gorgon, Triton, and Crystal.  The Inhumans first appeared in Fantastic Four comics in 1965 (with some new characters introduced in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV series).  They have an interesting backstory and enough different and diverse characters that it should have the potential to make a good series.  But this was not it.

Legion (FX 2017-2019) is linked to the X-Men universe (before the rights to that franchise reverted from Fox back to Disney).  It centers on David Heller/Legion (Dan Stevens), who might be the most powerful mutant of all.  He was diagnosed with schizophrenia at a young age, and has spent much of his life in mental institutions (with several other mutants).  But the bizarre visions and monsters he thinks are delusions might actually be real.  There’s apparently a parasitic demon who has been living in his head.  And, of course, there’s a secret organization that wants to harness his power.    

The series received a fair amount of critical acclaim for its visual effects and departure from standard superhero fare – and it is the least Marvel-like Marvel series you will ever see.  Those familiar with his character from the comic books know who his famous father is.  Jean Smart heads up an ensemble cast, which includes Aubrey Plaza.

The Gifted (Fox 2017-2019) takes place in the X-Men universe.  The X-Men have disappeared, and mutants are being hunted by a special government unit.  When two suburban parents (Stephen Moyer, Amy Acker), discover their two children (Natalie Alyn Lind, Percy Hynes White) have developed mutant powers, they seek refuge with an underground network of mutants.  This group, with varying degrees of enhanced abilities, fights to survive in a world that fears them and puts them in constant danger.  They also clash with a more aggressive group of mutants, who believes a pre-emptive strike on the humans who are hunting them is the best way to keep them all safe.

Olivia Holt and Aubrey Joseph star as Cloak and Dagger (Freeform 2018-2019), two teenagers from very different backgrounds (she from privilege, he from the streets), who have both experienced major tragedies in their lives.  Taking place in New Orleans, they acquired superpowers when an oil Gulf platform collapses.  She has the ability to emit light energy daggers, he can engulf others in darkness and transport them through the Darkforce Dimension.  As their friendship and relationship grows, they start to realize that their powers are linked together and strongest when they work in tandem – all the better to help them fight against the evil Roxxon corporation.

As Netflix’s five-year partnership with Disney-owned Marvel came to an end, it canceled all five of its original scripted series based on these heroes – Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and The Punisher   This coincided with Disney ramping up efforts for Disney+, and taking full operational control of Hulu.  Netflix was moving toward owning more of its own content, and it did not have an ownership stake in any of its Marvel series – each season required paying a hefty license fee to Disney-owned ABC Studios.  Continuing with additional seasons of these series, which they would soon lose the rights to anyway, was not seen as financially viable for Netflix.  Marvel was not permitted to use any of the Netflix characters until two years after the series was canceled.  This period is now over for all the Netflix shows, and while there are rumors about reviving some of the characters, nothing has yet been officially confirmed.

Marvel Studios, which produces the theatrical movies, started producing their own series in 2018 for Disney+, the first of which debuted in January 2021 – more than a dozen more are planned over the next few years, and they have significantly larger budgets than the series produced by Marvel Television.  They are also tied more directly to the theatrical movies, and several include supporting characters who appeared in those films.

WandaVision (Disney+, 2021) stars Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany reprising their roles as Wanda Maximoff, aka The Scarlett Witch, and Vision from the Avengers theatrical movies.  She has magical powers (telekinesis, telepathy, energy manipulation) and is one of the most powerful of all Marvel heroes.  He is an android with superhuman strength, speed, and analytical capabilities, as well as the ability to change his density and phase through objects. 

The series opens with our heroes in suburbia, living in simulation parodies of classic TV sitcoms from the 1950s through the early 2000s.  Wanda and Vision gradually start to realize something isn’t right when they seemingly can’t remember basic details of their new life.  Is this all an alternate-reality dimension created by Wanda, or is there something more nefarious afoot?  The mystery is unveiled in bits and pieces over the show’s nine episodes.  All of the quirkiness and weirdness of the series culminates in an action-packed finale, worthy of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at large. 

 

WandaVision was designed as a one-off series transitioning from the Avengers: Endgame theatrical movie to the upcoming Dr. Strange In the Multiverse of Madness, so another season seems unlikely.

The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Disney+, 2021) stars Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan in their roles as Sam Wilson/Falcon and Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier, respectively, teaming up in this six-episode series that finds them in the shadow of the recently departed Captain America (Sam’s mentor and Bucky’s former partner/foe/ally).

The series opens a few months after the events in Avengers: Endgame, with each of our heroes separately trying to adjust to life in a post-Blip world.  For those who don’t recall (or never knew), the “Blip” occurred when Thanos snapped his fingers and caused half of all life in the universe to disappear.  Thanks to the heroics of the surviving Avengers, they were brought back – but not until five years had passed, during which time much of the world was thrown into chaos.  

Although Sam has turned Captain America’s shield over to the government, expecting it to be displayed in a museum, they instead give it to a new “hero,” John Walker (Wyatt Russell), who they introduce to the world as the “new Captain America.”  Unlike Steve Rogers, John Walker did not receive enhanced abilities from being injected with the super-soldier serum, but rather is a decorated and highly trained special forces operative.  At first he seems like a decent enough guy, but that doesn’t last, and he is eventually forced to surrender the shield after a video of him brutally killing one of the bad guys goes viral.

The main bad guys are terrorists known as the Flag-Smashers, who believe things were better during the Blip, and want things to revert back to the chaos and that existed during that five-year period when half the population on earth had disappeared and many of the rules regarding how people lived, along with them.  These new foes are enhanced super-soldiers, led by a woman named Karli Morgenthau (Erin Kellyman). 

Our heroes win in the end.  Much of the drama focuses on the racial inequities that still exist in America, and Sam struggling with what it would mean for a Black man to be the symbol of our country.  The whole purpose of this series seems is to set up the next Captain America theatrical movie, with Anthony Mackie as the new shield carrying hero.  There are also some surprise guest appearances,

Loki (Disney+, 2021) stars Tom Hiddleston, who brings his movie character as the God of Mischief and Thor’s half-brother to the small screen.  In Avengers Endgame the Avengers went seven years back in time to when Loki was fighting them in the “Battle of New York” (from the first Avengers movie in 2012).  They needed to get the Infinity Stones before Thanos acquires them and wipes out half the universe.  In the chaos that ensued, Loki managed to get his hands on the powerful energy cube known as the Tesseract and disappears. 

This series follows what happens to that Loki, before we see him grow and redeem himself in Thor: Ragnarok and Avengers: Infinity War.  Loki’s disappearance has caught the attention of the Time Variants Authority (TVA), a powerful bureaucratic organization that exists outside of normal time and space.  The TVA is tasked by the mysterious Timekeepers to make sure people stay in their set timeline.  Any “variants” are put on trial and either reset into their expected timeline, or simply erased from existence.  Loki is now considered a variant.  A new major villain appears, and seems set to wreak havoc on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

The superhero genre extends beyond just DC on the CW and Marvel on Disney+.  Over the past few years, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and HBO Max have all developed successful entries in the genre. 

Titans (HBO Max, 2018- present) is based on the DC characters, the Teen Titans, young superheroes who fight evildoers.  This is not your parents’ group of heroes, however – the violence and sexual situations make it a much more adult version.  One thing that gives the show broad appeal is that it incorporates the version of the group that many Baby Boomers grew up with, namely Dick Grayson’s Robin (who eventually becomes Nightwing), Wonder Girl, and Aqualad, as well as vigilante partners known as Hawk and Dove, and brings them together with the newer version of the Titans – Jason Todd’s Robin, Starfire, Raven, and Beast Boy, as well as Conner/Superboy (a genetic clone of Superman and criminal genius Lex Luthor).

Titans originally debuted its first two seasons on the DC Universe streaming service, but shifted to HBO Max when that streaming service became the platform for original DC series outside the Arrowverse.

Doom Patrol (HBO Max, 2019- present) is another DC team of superheroes, although not from one of the more popular comics.  The group has undergone many different incarnations over the years.  The Doom Patrol is a group of super-powered misfits, each of whom received their powers due to horrible accidents that also left them scarred, traumatized, and alienated from society.  Members include, Chief, Negative Man, Robotman, Elasti-girl, Mento, Beast Boy (who joins the Titans), Space Case, Crazy Jane, Flex Mentallo, Danny the Ambulance, and Cyborg (who also becomes a member of the Teen Titans and Justice League).  Doom Patrol originally aired on DC Universe before moving to HBO Max.

The Boys (Amazon Prime Video, 2019-present) presents a world where superheroes are real, unaccountable, and can basically do whatever they want (such as accidentally kill ordinary citizens).  In this dark comedy-drama, based on the comic book series, a Justice League-type superhero group known as The Seven wreak havoc as they sometimes do and sometimes only pretend to do great deeds, often leaving destruction and death in their wake  They work for a multibillion-dollar conglomerate that licenses their images and covers up their crimes.  A vigilante group, known as the Boys, is committed to fighting and exposing these corrupt “heroes.” 

Just because this show centers around superheroes, however, does not mean it’s for kids.  Scenes of graphic and implied violence and sex are prevalent throughout.  Karl Urban stars as Billy Butcher, leader of the vigilante group sworn to bring down the “heroes.”  Antony Starr is Homelander, the Superman-style, most powerful member of The Seven.  Erin Moriarity, Dominique McElligott, Aya Cash, and Giancarlo Esposito, among others, round out the cast. 

The Umbrella Academy (Netflix, 2019-present) is based on the comic of the same name.  In 1989, 43 infants are inexplicably born to random women who showed no signs of pregnancy.  Seven of them, all with enhanced abilities, are adopted by a billionaire industrialist who creates the Umbrella Academy to prepare his “children” to save the world.  But first they have to solve his mysterious death.  The siblings travel through time in an attempt to avoid an apocalypse that they somehow ended up causing in the future, while being hunted by assassins sent to stop them from preventing the end of the world,

The ensemble cast includes, Elliot Page, Tom Hopper, David Casteneda, Cameron Britton, Emmy Raver-Lampman, Robert Sheehan, Aidan Gallagher, and Mary J. Blige.  It remains one of Netflix’s most popular shows.

Jupiter’s Legacy (Netflix, 2021) is based on Mark Millar’s comic-book series, about the super-powered children of legendary superheroes, who struggle to live up to the extraordinary feats of their parents.  They see the modern world differently, and their parents’ code of ethics about never killing the villains as a relic of a different, more civilized time.

Jupiter’s Legacy was supposed to be the first in a series of “Millarworld” shows, creating a new superhero universe for Netflix (to compete with Disney+’s Marvel and Star Wars franchises).  But despite being one of Netflix’s most watched series, it was mysteriously canceled after just one season.  The high budget and behind-the-scenes production battles were blamed.  Netflix and Millar spun the cancellation by saying they are proceeding with Jupiter’s universe, starting with an unrelated Millar comic-book series titled, Supercrooks.

Just as Disney+ will be expanding the Marvel on television, HBO Max will be trying to do the same for DC.  While the Marvel TV series will have links to its cinematic universe, it’s not clear if the same will be true for the DC series.

Several upcoming Marvel series on Disney+ will feature lesser-known characters from its vast array of comic-book heroes:

 

Hawkeye, with Jeremy Renner reprising his role from the Avengers movies, will have a six-episode run in fall 2021.  Hailee Steinfeld will play his young female protegee, Kate Bishop.  Vera Farmiga and Florence Pugh (who starred in the Black Widow movie) also star.

Disney+ is reportedly already working on a spin-off series, featuring another lesser-known Marvel character (first introduced in the Daredevil comic book in 1998), who will also appear in Hawkeye – Echo (Alaqua Cox), a deaf Native-American martial arts expert, whose superpower is her ability to mimic her opponents’ movements and fighting style.

 

She-Hulk will star Tatiana Maslany as Jennifer Walters, lawyer-turned green super-strong hero (who is also Bruce Banner’s cousin – in the comic book, she gains his Hulk powers after getting a blood transfusion from him, so look for Mark Ruffalo to show up).  Tim Roth will reprise his role as the Abomination from The Incredible Hulk movie.  Jameela Jamil will play Titania, a super strong rival of She-Hulk.  Ten episodes are scheduled for some time in 2022.

Ms. Marvel will star Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan, a 16-year-old Muslim Pakistani-American from New Jersey, who writes superhero fan fiction about Captain Marvel, and gains shape-shifting powers (from her latent Inhuman DNA).  Kamala Khan is Marvel’s first Muslim character to headline her own comic book or television series (she made her first comic-book appearance in 2013).  It is expected to debut its six episode run in October or November 2021.  Ms. Marvel is also reportedly going to appear in the feature film, The Marvels, scheduled for 2022.

Moon Knight is one of the more unusual Marvel characters.  Oscar Isaac will play Marc Spector, also known as Moon Knight – a former U.S. marine, C.I.A operative, and mercenary with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).  In the comic book, Marc Spector is near death in Egypt after being betrayed by his employer.  He is saved by the Egyptian moon god  Khonshu, and is given superhuman abilities, in exchange for becoming his conduit on Earth.  Upon his return to the U.S., he becomes the crimefighter, Moon Knight.  He has multiple identities with their own distinct personalities – from a cab driver to a millionaire socialite – which he uses to gain information without being noticed.  This character has been compared to DCs Batman (or at least what Batman might be like if he had DID).  Ethan Hawke will reportedly play the show’s main villain, with May Calamawy in an undisclosed role.  It has a yet to be announced 2022 release date for its six episodes.

Secret Invasion is based on the epic 2008 Marvel comic-book series about the Skrulls, shape-shifting aliens who have been infiltrating Earth for years and replacing various Marvel heroes.  Samuel L. Jackson will reprise his role as Nick Fury, with Ben Mendelsohn again playing the alien Skrull, Talos (first introduced in Captain Marvel).  Kingsley Ben-Adir and Olivia Colman, are set to co-star, and Emilia Clarke is in negotiations to join the cast as well.

Ironheart will be based on one of Marvel’s more obscure comic-book characters who first appeared in 20016, and will star Dominique Thorne in the title role.  She plays Riri Williams, a 15-year-old engineering student genius who attends MIT on a scholarship.  She designs a suit of armor similar to Iron Man’s with material she steals from her campus.  Tony Stark (Iron Man) takes notice of her achievement and encourages her in her goal to become a superhero.  They were  originally considering calling her Iron Woman or Iron Maiden, but thought the former was too old fashioned, and the latter simply inappropriate.  This will be the MCU’s first Black female title character.   It’s slated for an April 2022 release and will consist of six episodes.  Before the shows airs, the character will reportedly appear in the next Black Panther theatrical movie.

Armor Wars will star Don Cheadle reprising his role from the Iron Man and Avenger movies, as War Machine, another secondary Marvel hero to get the series treatment.  There was a seven-issue comic book series in 1987/88 where Tony Stark discovers the top-secret technology he used to create the Iron Man armor has been acquired by a group of supervillains.  But with Tony Stark having died at the end of Avengers: Endgame, it looks like James Rhodes/War Machine will be the one battling them to get the technology back.

Untitled Wakanda Series will star Danak Gurira, reprising her film role as Okoye, the head of the Dora Milaje, Wakanda’s all-female special forces, and the Black Panther’s bodyguards.  Nothing about the plot or additional casting is yet known.  There are unconfirmed rumors that one of Marvel’s great anti-heroes, Namor the Sub-Mariner, might make an appearance

What If…? is an animated series based on the comic book of the same name, which imagines what would happen if things in the Marvel Universe happened differently.  For example, what if Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) became Captain America instead of Steve Rogers, or if Loki wielded the hammer instead of Thor, and other alternate realities.  Many recognizable Marvel actors will voice their character roles.  Twenty-three episodes are planned for summer 2021, the first two of which have already aired.

While the CW will continue to be the primary broadcast network for DC series, particularly for the Arrowverse, HBO Max will not only be the home for former DC Universe series, but will have several new entries, featuring both popular and lesser known heroes.

Naomi from Ava Duvernay, will air on CW this season, and will star Kaci Walfall as the African-American teenage hero that saw her DC Comics debut in 2019.  Naomi is a cool, confident, comic-book and superhero loving teenage high-school student.  When a supernatural event shakes her small hometown of Port Oswego, Oregon, she sets out to uncover its origins, which leads to exploring the DC multiverse and uncovering the truth about her own super-powered origins.

The following series are slated for HBO Max.

Green Lantern, which Arrowverse mega-producer Greg Berlanti promises will be “our biggest DC show ever made,” will reportedly span several decades, and feature more than a few popular members of the Green Lantern Corps. (heroes with green-charged power rings, who protect the earth and the universe from cosmic threats), including Alan Scott, Guy Gardner, Jessica Cruz, Simon Baz, and Kilowog.  It will also include the iconic villain, Sinestro.  This has no relation to the failed 2011 theatrical movie.  The pandemic delayed production, so the planned 2021 release will likely be delayed until 2022.  Ten episodes have been ordered.

Peacemaker will star John Cena, reprising his role from the latest Suicide Squad theatrical movie as the highly skilled and equally unstable warrior, Peacemaker.  James Gunn, who is writing the series, has confirmed that other characters from the film will appear in the TV show.  The series was picked up for eight episodes, scheduled to premiere in January 2022.

DC Super Hero High is a comedy about a group of teenagers who are destined to become superheroes.  The series will be set in a boarding school for gifted children, and will deal with typical teenage issues before they become heroes.  It will probably debut in late 2021 or early 2022.

Justice League Dark is based on the Justice League spin-off comic about a team that battles supernatural forces.  In the comics, the team has included characters such as John Constantine, Deadman, Zatana, and Swamp Thing, but there’s no word yet on which of them or any others will be featured here.  There’s a chance that characters from this series will eventually be spun off into their own series (the opposite of what Netflix did with The Defenders) J.J. Abrams is developing the show.

Constantine will reportedly be another new series from J.J. Abrams.  It will focus on a younger version of the man who fights against supernatural foes (there could be cross-over possibilities with Justice League Dark, since John Constantine will be played by the same actor in both series).  No word yet on a potential release date.

Strange Adventures is an anthology series from Greg Berlanti, with each episode telling a cautionary tale focusing on different, mostly lesser-known characters within the DC universe (possibly someone like Adam Strange).  Stories could run the gamut from earthbound heroes to intergalactic themes and the supernatural.  Strange Adventures was a comic-book series that ran from 1950-1973, focusing largely on sci-fi stories that sometimes included superheroes.  I haven’t heard any details or a potential release date since it was originally announced as being in development.

Madame X will be adapted for HBO Max by J.J. Abrams and Angela Robinson.  Madame X is a sorceress who has helped both the Suicide Squad and Justice League Dark in the DC comic books.  The series is in the early development stage, so no release date has been announced.

The Batman Prequel will be a spin-off of director Matt Reeves’ upcoming The Batman theatrical movie, which is scheduled to be released in theaters in October 2021.  The series will focus primarily on the Gotham City Police Department and “will build upon the motion picture’s examination of the anatomy of corruption in Gotham City, ultimately launching a new Batman universe across multiple platforms.”  The series will take place a year before The Batman movie, as the masked vigilante first appears on the scene.  The story is seen through the POV of Gotham’s corrupt cops, and one in particular.  Reeves described the story as “a battle for the cop’s soul.”

Val-Zod Superman Series is being developed for HBO Max by Michael B. Jordan.  Val-Zod (who happens to be Black) is the Superman from Earth 2, where he is one of the last Kryptonians, and the second to assume the Superman mantle.  The character first appeared in a DC comic in 2014.

Aquaman: King of Atlantis is a three-part animated series aimed at kids, and focusing on the undersea superhero and his underwater kingdom of Atlantis.

There have been numerous animated series based on DC, Marvel, and other characters throughout the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, and 2000s, geared to kids, teens, and young adults.  Just some examples representative of each decade include,

1960s: Marvel: Spider-Man, Fantastic Four. DC: The New Adventures of Superman, The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure, The Batman/Superman Hour, The Adventures of Batman. Other: Mighty Mouse Playhouse, Courageous Cat and Minute Mouse, Astro Boy, Underdog, 8 Man, Atom Ant, Secret Squirrel, The Herculoids, Space Ghost, Birdman.

1970s: Marvel: Spider-Man, Super Friends, Spider-Woman.  DC:  The New Adventures of Batman, The Batman/Tarzan Adventure Hour. Other: The New Adventures of Flash Gordon, The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse.

1980s: Marvel: Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk.  DC: Super Friends, Shazam!.  Other: Thundarr the Barbarian, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, The Transformers, She-Ra: Princess of Power, Defenders of Earth, The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse,  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

1990s: Marvel: Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, Spawn.  DC: Batman: The Animated Series, Superman the Animated Series.  Other: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Dragon Ball Z, Darkwing Duck, The New Adventures of Captain Planet, The Tick, Mega Man, The Powerpuff Girls.

2000s: Marvel: The Spectacular Spider-Man, X-Men Evolution, Wolverine and the X-Men, Fantastic Four.  DC:  Batman Beyond, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Teen Titans, Justice League Unlimited, Legion of Super Heroes.  Other:  Samurai Jack, Max Steel, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Teamo Supremo.

2010s: Marvel: Avengers Assemble, The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, Iron Man: Armored Adventures, Ultimate Spider-Man, Marvel’s Spider-Man, Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H., Guardians of the Galaxy, Big Hero 6: The Series.  DC: Young Justice, Teen Titans Go, DC Super Hero Girls.  Other: Transformers Prime, The Powerpuff Girls, Stretch Armstrong and the Flex Fighters, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

2020s: Marvel: Spidey and His Amazing Friends, Stan Lee’s Superhero Kindergarten M.O.D.O.K., What If… DC: Harley Quinn, Aquaman: King of Atlantis.  Other: Invincible, Kid Cosmic.