[harsh]

I don't think cloud DVR is included as I don't see it listed in the original article.

There appears an implication that there will be time-shifting capability (though it may well be limited to CBS content).

 

[James Long]

I just can't imagine how the local stations are going to benefit from this. Is NBC going to replace the affiliates Nielsen ratings with their own ranking system? Ad-supported TV has some fairly important depedencies.

How is CBS doing it?

My first guess would be that they are providing more compelling content.

Are you saying CBS/Paramount+ is replacing Nielsen ratings by providing more compelling content? Why would NBC need to replace Nielsen with another ranking system while CBS does not?

I don't think cloud DVR is included as I don't see it listed in the original article.

There appears an implication that there will be time-shifting capability (though it may well be limited to CBS content).

NBC content?

 

[b4pjoe]

Is it just me or is everything @harsh is posting about NBC and CBS streaming the locals not making a bit of sense?

 

[James Long]

Based on past discussions, Nielsen should be capturing viewing on the local affiliates whether those affiliates are delivered to the monitored homes via OTA, cable, satellite or any streaming service. I'm not sure why harsh was concerned that OTA stations would lose ratings simply because their channel was streamed by Peacock+ instead of received OTA or via one of the many retransmission companies. The same would apply to Paramount+ ... a stream of a local station feed is the same regardless of delivery method.

Where the local station could be hurt (equally on Peacock+ and Paramount+) would be when a viewer watches an on demand version of the content instead of a recorded feed of their local station. One would need to check with Nielsen to see if they credit such viewership to the local affiliate or if that delayed viewership is lost. The popularity of the content would not change how the viewership is measured.

 

[Mogrub]

For reasons that are many, a lot of viewers don't have access to the OTA option.

Many reasons for sure. But the single biggest reason why many of us can't retrieve a good OTA signal for free, no matter how eager or antenna savvy we may be, is that the local network broadcasters have zero reason to invest and get us that signal. In the current marketplace, they'd be shooting themselves in the financial foot to do so. Local affiliates make way more money via the retransmission fee system. They're hooked on that now, and those fees would take a huge hit if high quality OTA signals were available to everyone for free. That is the single biggest reason why many of us don't receive them. The challenge to getting OTA signals to more of us isn't technical. It's financial.

But the commitment to delivering those OTA signals to everyone for free was the beating heart of the original broadcast license deals. Those are all public frequencies. We own them. The local OTA broadcasters were granted licenses to use them. As part of that deal, local broadcasters committed to do their best to get OTA signals to everyone in the local markets they "serve." (That language from the original regulatory framework sounds so quaint now.) But I have zero shot at OTA at my house. Local topography and placement of the existing antenna farm are the problem. The only thing I do have a fair shot at is a bloated monthly payment to a third party service provider (lots of choices there though, and we all know why), all of whom who kick back a portion of their monthly revenues to the local network affiliates, all of whom have grown dependent like addicts on that found money. Those retransmission revenues have grown over time to become a multiple of their OTA advertising revenues. In that kind of marketplace, why would a rational actor invest a bunch of money to get to everyone free OTA? Costs would go up and revenues would go down. That's why it doesn't happen. They'd be shooting themselves in the financial foot.

That's a rational decision. But that wasn't the original deal. We own those frequencies. They still use them. The promise to use best efforts to deliver those OTA signals to everyone in town is how each broadcaster won the right to use them in the first place. No doubt, there are other OTA challenges, geography and topography chief among them. But let's be real: if local broadcasters wanted to get their OTA signal to 99% of us, if that put more money in their pockets, it would already be done. But since that would actually put less money in their pockets, it doesn't happen. So we all pay a bunch of cash each month for something that was supposed to be free, could be free, should be free. But isn't. I can afford it. Not everybody can. So they do without local news, emergency broadcasts, weather updates. That's just plain wrong. Stepping off soapbox.

 

[James Long]

Those retransmission revenues have grown over time to become a multiple of their OTA advertising revenues. In that kind of marketplace, why would a rational actor invest a bunch of money to get to everyone free OTA?

An interesting theory. Retransmission fees have risen but do you have any source for the claim of the fees being multiples of their advertising revenue? Especially since fee increases in recent years have been driven by their networks who are getting a cut of the retransmission fee paid to each local station?

I do not agree with retransmission fees but they were introduced as a copyright payment. Paying that fee pays for the right to copy a station's local fee and deliver it to the satellite or cable company's customers. For "distant" channels the fees are set to a statutory rate and paid into a fund where the copyright owners claim payment for the content they own. For local-into-local that payment goes to the local station - so it makes sense that they have to pass on the fee to the network that owns the content the local station retransmit.

The second part of that claim is that stations are intentionally not covering their entire coverage area in an attempt to increase payments via retransmission fees. First of all I hope you have an understanding of the coverage area for each TV station. Your local OTA affiliate is licensed to cover a specific area defined by the area that can be reached by a broadcast antenna at a specific height in a specific location transmitting at a specific power. There is no obligation to provide a signal to every household within their Nielsen DMA - and there never has been. OTA transmission is RF based, not DMA based. So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.

It is in the station's best interest to cover the area they are licensed to carry and I doubt you will find stations that do not provided their licensed coverage. But it is important to understand that an OTA license has different geographic limits than retransmission on cable and satellite.

 

[b4pjoe]

The second part of that claim is that stations are intentionally not covering their entire coverage area in an attempt to increase payments via retransmission fees. First of all I hope you have an understanding of the coverage area for each TV station. Your local OTA affiliate is licensed to cover a specific area defined by the area that can be reached by a broadcast antenna at a specific height in a specific location transmitting at a specific power. There is no obligation to provide a signal to every household within their Nielson DMA - and there never has been. OTA transmission is RF based, not DMA based. So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.

I can attest to this as growing up in the late 50's early 60's we got our first TV probably around 1961 or 1962. We had an antenna that as a small kid looked to me like it was 500 feet in the air. It was more like 25'. It had a rotor motor on top of it and we could rotate via a box in the house. Nearest stattions were Terra Haute and Vincinnes, IN and Harrisburg, IL and all were in the 70 - 80 mile range. Reception was not great though anywhere from a snowy picture to none at all. If it was a day or evening where you got a watchable picture great. If not you did something else. There was certainly no regulations back then the signal had to be good no matter the distance. You were either close enough to get a decent picture or you weren't. Today I am about 75 - 80 miles from locals in St. Louis and I don't think I could get a picture at all OTA as the topology is not conducive to it as it was in the other direction as a kid. My brother lives in St. Louis and and has just a small indoor antenna and the local network stations are crystal clear so it seems it is about the same today as when I was a kid. You either live close enough to get a good OTA picture or you don't. Or you buy cable/satellite/streaming service that delivers a clear picture. In my case I know if I want a decent picture one of those 3 is a must. OTA is not possible for me.

 

[harsh]

Are you saying CBS/Paramount+ is replacing Nielson ratings by providing more compelling content?

I'm saying that CBS is succeeding where NBC isn't because CBS generally has more compelling content. To interpret it any other way seems silly.

The ratings issue is how they plan to get market share readings on their affiliate if the content is played on Peacock rather than through some medium that is currently measured by a known agency. The ad-supported model has typically been based on the eyeballs measured watching the station. They can't just claim that "everybody is still watching the station, they're just watching on Peacock now".

 

[Mogrub]

So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.

I live in downtown Boston and face east. Great Italian food. But no OTA for me.

Conspiracy is your word, not mine. I don't see it that way at all. But what I do see is that, in the current marketplace, none of the actors on the signal delivery side have any incentive to ensure most citizens in their local markets enjoy ready access to high quality OTA signals. I further believe that such access underpins the entire federal licensure of the citizen-owned frequencies in question. FWIW. YMMV.

 

[b4pjoe]

I'm saying that CBS is succeeding where NBC isn't because CBS generally has more compelling content. To interpret it any other way seems silly.

The ratings issue is how they plan to get market share readings on their affiliate if the content is played on Peacock rather than through some medium that is currently measured by a known agency. The ad-supported model has typically been based on the eyeballs measured watching the station. They can't just claim that "everybody is still watching the station, they're just watching on Peacock now".

So you are saying the the eyeballs watching on Peacock, Paramount+, Youtube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, DirecTV Stream, etc...are not being counted?

Streaming Platform Ratings | Nielsen

Gain insights into the time viewers spend watching streaming video content, and on which platforms, using Nielsen’s panel for linear TV measurement.

www.nielsen.com

Nielsen Streaming Platform Ratings uses people-powered panels and proprietary metering technology to measure what content is streamed, the device used to stream (smart TVs, connected devices, video game consoles) and the streaming source application.

 

[Mogrub]

This is a start: Adam Jacobson, Retransmission Consent Revenue: An 11% Growth Engine, Radio and Television Business Report, July 30, 2019.

We're way off topic so I'll leave it there.

 

[b4pjoe]

Just got around to checking Peacock and they already have my local NBC affiliate in the channels area.

Just checked again and my NBC local is no longer there.

 

[NYDutch]

Just checked again and my NBC local is no longer there.

Mine disappeared too, so I suspect they were doing some testing in preparation for the official start on the 30th.

 

[harsh]

So you are saying the the eyeballs watching on Peacock, Paramount+, Youtube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, DirecTV Stream, etc...are not being counted?

Not what I said.

What I'm saying is that in order to get the ratings applied to the affiliates, NBC must contract with Nielsen (which they may have done or are in the process of doing) to insure that the affiliates get their due. Cable networks already do this but this is a larger undertaking with so many affiliates.

 

[b4pjoe]

Read the link I posted. Nielsen already includes steaming in their results.

 

[James Long]

What I'm saying is that in order to get the ratings applied to the affiliates, NBC must contract with Nielsen (which they may have done or are in the process of doing) to insure that the affiliates get their due. Cable networks already do this but this is a larger undertaking with so many affiliates.

So all this is some sort of fear that NBC won't make the same arrangements as CBS to get their content counted for their affiliates? You don't know whether or not Nielsen will be counting NBC locals via Peacock but you can sure post some fear, uncertainty and doubt!

Do you have any skin in the game or are you worrying about NBC affiliates out of the kindness of your heart?

Is NBC going to replace the affiliates Nielsen ratings with their own ranking system?

I'd say "no" ... and apparently you would say "no" too considering you have now pivoted to "NBC must contract with Nielsen" instead of "NBC must replace Nielsen".

 

[harsh]

I'd say "no" ... and apparently you would say "no" too considering you have now pivoted to "NBC must contract with Nielsen" instead of "NBC must replace Nielsen".

I haven't changed my position despite the active efforts to willfully misinterpret it.

Somehow the affiliates have to prove that they haven't lost eyeballs and that's going to require some very careful tracking of a lot of new data. If they want that data from Nielsen, they're going to have to pay for it. If they're not going to do that they need to find an alternative that convincingly demonstrates that the affiliates have retained the eyeballs that have turned toward Peacock.

As to why this is important, I see local ads on Peacock Premium when I'm watching NBC network programming but they are different than the ones that are broadcast (and decidedly absent teasers of other affiliate programming). DMAs are established in large part on local advertisers targeting local shoppers.

If viewers find that binging the NBC content on Peacock is more attractive than watching it on the affiliate, who get's the credit?

 

[James Long]

Somehow the affiliates have to prove that they haven't lost eyeballs and that's going to require some very careful tracking of a lot of new data. If they want that data from Nielsen, they're going to have to pay for it. If they're not going to do that they need to find an alternative that convincingly demonstrates that the affiliates have retained the eyeballs that have turned toward Peacock.

So ... can you answer the question of how CBS/Peacock+ solves that problem? "Providing more compelling content" is not the answer.

 

[harsh]

So ... can you answer the question of how CBS/Peacock+ solves that problem? "Providing more compelling content" is not the answer.

They attract many more paying subscribers to their platform making it a viable source of income to support not only the offices at 51 West 52nd Street but also the network of affiliates.

 

[b4pjoe]

I haven't changed my position despite the active efforts to willfully misinterpret it.

Somehow the affiliates have to prove that they haven't lost eyeballs and that's going to require some very careful tracking of a lot of new data. If they want that data from Nielsen, they're going to have to pay for it. If they're not going to do that they need to find an alternative that convincingly demonstrates that the affiliates have retained the eyeballs that have turned toward Peacock.

As to why this is important, I see local ads on Peacock Premium when I'm watching NBC network programming but they are different than the ones that are broadcast (and decidedly absent teasers of other affiliate programming). DMAs are established in large part on local advertisers targeting local shoppers.

If viewers find that binging the NBC content on Peacock is more attractive than watching it on the affiliate, who get's the credit?

Good Lord what is wrong with you? The NBC local affiliate that Peacock is going to be broadcasting will be the exact same broadcast the affiliate shows OTA and cable and sat including the exact same ads....just like the Paramount+ local affiliate is the same broadcast as that local on all services. What you are talking about is the OnDemand version you see in the ad supported tier that has different commercials than you see on your local affiliate. And Nielsen has OnDemand, DVR, cable, sat, and streaming all covered as the quote stated I posted earlier and I will show it to you here again.

Streaming Platform Ratings | Nielsen

Gain insights into the time viewers spend watching streaming video content, and on which platforms, using Nielsen’s panel for linear TV measurement.

www.nielsen.com

Nielsen Streaming Platform Ratings uses people-powered panels and proprietary metering technology to measure what content is streamed, the device used to stream (smart TVs, connected devices, video game consoles) and the streaming source application.