Does HD Help Ratings?

From 'ER' to 'Lost,' Some Evidence Suggests Not

ABC's "Lost" is in HD and its ratings are going down. NBC's "Heroes" is in HD and its ratings are flying high. The CW's "America's Next Top Model" has yet to upgrade to HD, yet its ratings keep getting better.

So what does all this mean?

HD's effect on ratings is still tough to decipher, experts say.

Though networks are spending a fortune to upgrade productions to HD, and early-adopting viewers are enamored with the format, so far there's very little evidence that being in HD impacts ratings.

"'Lost' is in a downward [ratings] spiral this year and it's in HD," said Pete Putman, president of Roam consulting and author of the HDTVExpert Web site. "'ER' was once NBC's highest-rated program, but it hasn't cracked the top 20 in over a year even though it went HD in 2004."

For HDTV owners, this may seem counterintuitive. Studies have shown HDTV viewers give priority to viewing shows in HD and actively seek out content in the format.

A Magid Associates survey found about four out of 10 HD viewers start their viewing by searching their HD channels.

But Rob Yarin, VP of Magid, said HD browsing habits don't necessarily result in long-term viewership.

"Viewers watch a show presumably because they are interested in it, then HD enhances the experience," Mr. Yarin said. "There may be a few exceptions, such as Discovery programs like 'Sunrise Earth,' which are specifically geared for HD, and perhaps sports. But the growing HD browsing habit has not driven significant growth in time spent with HD programming."

One problem is that HD penetration is still too limited to move the Nielsen needle. Less than 15 percent of households have a subscription HD service or use an over-the-air antenna for HD programming.

As another example of HD's lack of viewership power, Mr. Putman pointed to veteran game shows "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune," which last fall for the first time launched their new seasons in high-definition, with considerable fanfare.

But since its HD launch, the ratings for "Jeopardy" are unchanged, while "Wheel" is up 1 percent.

A "Wheel" and "Jeopardy" spokeswoman countered that the shows are a poor test of HD impact, since the HD versions are available in only 36 percent of households. Also, most syndicated shows are down this year; therefore, the game shows could have maintained their averages or, in the case of "Wheel," grown slightly due to the addition of HD.

Which brings up another point: If a show's ratings rise or fall, who's to say it's because it's in HD (or not)?

Looking at prime-time reality series, Fox's "American Idol" and ABC's "Dancing With the Stars" received HD upgrades in the middle of their runs last year, and their ratings increased the following season. By contrast, NBC's "The Apprentice" and CBS's "Survivor" and "The Amazing Race" have stayed in standard definition and lose viewers every season.

Though the ratings loss by "Race," "Survivor" and "Apprentice" is almost entirely due to their aging formats, keeping the scenic "Survivor" and "Race" in SD when most of primetime is now in HD, one could argue, has contributed to the loss.

"Once somebody sees something in HD, it is hard to put it down," said David Bott, co-founder of AVS Forum. "Even more so when it is something real, such as sports or shows on PBS and Discovery … and reality shows. I think something like 'Amazing Race' would benefit from being in HD."

http://www.tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=649

(Post #3000)

Well, it does by at least 1 viewer...

Me

I don't watch new shows if they are not in HD. I've even decided to give up Survivor and TAR and all those other SD reality shows.

Heck I'm even waiting for BSG to gome on UHD before I watch it now.

Does HD help ratings?

No.

HD viewers aren't rated.

While widely believed, in fact that is not true, at least according to what Nielsen told me several weeks ago, Network TV.

I asked the specific question: "Are people watching HD programs counted in the ratings?".

The answer: As long as they are watching a channel with simultaneous SD and HD broadcasts, they are counted, just not broken down into HD viewers. Nielsen believes there are something in the neighborhood of 20% of viewers watching HD broadcasts during prime time programming.

There is no rating yet for HD-only channels.

I will be watching NBC nightly news. Curently watch CBS. I watch the today show also a switch from ABC. Those of us here watch as little SD as possible. As for the Joe six packs out thier with big screen TV and SD connection already think there watching HD.

According to the "Courier Journal" (from Lousiville, KY) the first round NCAA games for UK and UofL gobbled up approximately 47% of the audience in the market, despite the fact that neither game was carried in HD by the local CBS affiliate (WLKY.) Yes it looked crappy, yes "we" (and I use the term we loosely) watched anyway.

In short, I don't think there's a black and white answer to the original question.

I will be watching NBC nightly news. Curently watch CBS. I watch the today show also a switch from ABC. Those of us here watch as little SD as possible. As for the Joe six packs out thier with big screen TV and SD connection already think there watching HD.

Reminds me of my mom she has a Philips HDTV and was watching an SD show, the picture was really good quality and she kept telling people she's watching HD little realizing she needs to be tuned to an HD station.

As for myself I only watch SD if I have to otherwise I wouldn't waste my time watching 480i signals when there is better available. If people have never experienced HD then they of course will be content with SD. Dedicated HD viewers know better however. My dream is the day when all broadcasts will be HDTV, I will die a happy man the day that comes to fruition I have a few more decades in me yet. I can wait.

While widely believed, in fact that is not true, at least according to what Nielsen told me several weeks ago, Network TV.

I asked the specific question: "Are people watching HD programs counted in the ratings?".

The answer: As long as they are watching a channel with simultaneous SD and HD broadcasts, they are counted, just not broken down into HD viewers. Nielsen believes there are something in the neighborhood of 20% of viewers watching HD broadcasts during prime time programming.

There is no rating yet for HD-only channels.
It still begs the question whether they are really counted. They're being counted for the show, SD or HD, with no correlation between them.

The fact is, HD viewers still really have no juice. The numbers are at, what, 30% according to sets sold? The real number is probably half that for actual HD viewing.

The fact is, HD can't help a bad show and a truly popular show will get ratings, whether it's SD or HD. In the end, the content drives viewers, not the delivery.

If there was less HD content out there, it might help boost those shows among HD viewers. However, there is so much stuff out there now, it's not as much of an issue. Other than reality shows, nearly every high-rated show is in HD. It means that if one HD choice doesn't appeal to you, there is always another.

Well I think CBS should be happy they went to HD a while back before others because that got me watching a whole lot of shows that I never watched or care to watch. The HD DVR also had a lot to do with my viewing habits as well. So for me HD made a huge difference.

While widely believed, in fact that is not true, at least according to what Nielsen told me several weeks ago, Network TV.

I asked the specific question: "Are people watching HD programs counted in the ratings?".

The answer: As long as they are watching a channel with simultaneous SD and HD broadcasts, they are counted, just not broken down into HD viewers. Nielsen believes there are something in the neighborhood of 20% of viewers watching HD broadcasts during prime time programming.

There is no rating yet for HD-only channels.

That information is correct.

Well, I'll tell ya - I'd still watch the worst looking SD stuff ever on my HD set before I'd ever be caught DEAD watching "American Idol" in HD :p.

Well, I'll tell ya - I'd still watch the worst looking SD stuff ever on my HD set before I'd ever be caught DEAD watching "American Idol" in HD :p.

That I agree with you 100% I have never and will never watch this show.

Well, I'll tell ya - I'd still watch the worst looking SD stuff ever on my HD set before I'd ever be caught DEAD watching "American Idol" in HD :p.

Here here!

Heck I'm even waiting for BSG to gome on UHD before I watch it now.My wife won't let us wait for the DVD. (UHD is out of the question: They don't provide closed captions. :eek: ) So I think that's really where things are, and what the article is highlighting: That while HD affects some viewers' choices, there are a number of viewers that will watch shows regardless of HD vs. SD, and so many that there is no clear advantage (yet) to broadcasting in HD.

Does HD Help Ratings?

Though the ratings loss by "Race," "Survivor" and "Apprentice" is almost entirely due to their aging formats, keeping the scenic "Survivor" and "Race" in SD when most of primetime is now in HD, one could argue, has contributed to the loss.


(Post #3000)
Regarding Survivor and Amazing Race, I think both of these programs could be helped by going HD. I can only speak for myself, but since we got HD, I find myself watching shows that I've wouldn't have bothered with before HD. I catch myself watching lots of PBS, mainly because of the gorgeous scenery on shows like NOVA.

With Survivor and Amazing, they could show-off much of the amazing scenery with HD. It would add to the enjoyment emensely. I don't know what they're waiting for. It can't be the size of the HD cameras, could it? If it is, then just set up the bulky, high quality ones for the scenery and challenges. Let the cameramen use high quality pro-sumer HD cameras.

Going HD could give these two shows a "boost" in interest and ratings.

ft

Why don't we change the topic a little:

"Why doesn't HD help ratings?" obviously it would if the Neilsons/networks really wanted it to, but if they don't care, I certainly don't, and I just wont bother to watch their SD programming.

Why don't we change the topic a little:

"Why doesn't HD help ratings?" obviously it would if the Neilsons/networks really wanted it to, but if they don't care, I certainly don't, and I just wont bother to watch their SD programming.
...and the answer would be "not enough people have it". Even a large number of people that HDTV sets aren't watching HD. By the time enough people are actually watching HD, most of the big networks will have the bulk of their programming available in HD. At that point, it will be back to being about the show, not the display format.

While widely believed, in fact that is not true, at least according to what Nielsen told me several weeks ago, Network TV.

I asked the specific question: "Are people watching HD programs counted in the ratings?".

The answer: As long as they are watching a channel with simultaneous SD and HD broadcasts, they are counted, just not broken down into HD viewers. Nielsen believes there are something in the neighborhood of 20% of viewers watching HD broadcasts during prime time programming.

There is no rating yet for HD-only channels.This is what they also told me two years ago, without the 20% figure.

Regarding Survivor and Amazing Race, I think both of these programs could be helped by going HD. I can only speak for myself, but since we got HD, I find myself watching shows that I've wouldn't have bothered with before HD. I catch myself watching lots of PBS, mainly because of the gorgeous scenery on shows like NOVA.

With Survivor and Amazing, they could show-off much of the amazing scenery with HD. It would add to the enjoyment emensely. I don't know what they're waiting for. It can't be the size of the HD cameras, could it? If it is, then just set up the bulky, high quality ones for the scenery and challenges. Let the cameramen use high quality pro-sumer HD cameras.

Going HD could give these two shows a "boost" in interest and ratings.

ft


This was actually the original premise for this story, because i suspected the same thing about those two. For me, it certainly would make a difference. But nearly every person I called shot it down. So the story shifted to a general "does HD impact ratings?" story. And, yeah, Fred is right, they're counted, but only if simulcast.

At the end of the day, I suspect HD does make a difference ... just a statistically very, very small one. Now, if HD penetration was 100 percent ...

At the end of the day, I suspect HD does make a difference ... just a statistically very, very small one. Now, if HD penetration was 100 percent ...

If that was the case, how do you reconcile the fact that the week after most local HD Newscasts have gone live, their first week of HD is lower than their last week of SD in the overnight metered markets?

I cannot say that is 100% universally true as I have not looked at 100% of the overnights, but I know it has been in the 20 or so situations that I have looked at.

I have yet to find a situation where the first week of HD local news is higher than the last SD week - and as stated, most first HD weeks are lower.


Also note this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10126205&&#post10126205

If that was the case, how do you reconcile the fact that the week after most local HD Newscasts have gone live, their first week of HD is lower than their last week of SD in the overnight metered markets?

I cannot say that is 100% universally true as I have not looked at 100% of the overnights, but I know it has been in the 20 or so situations that I have looked at.

I have yet to find a situation where the first week of HD local news is higher than the last SD week - and as stated, most first HD weeks are lower.


Also note this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10126205&&#post10126205


Interesting ... thanks for the tip

An article like this is hard to take at face value. It's vague regarding it's evidence, and uses just a couple of examples, like 'Lost'--a show that certainly has a few factors for it's downward spiral of ratings. The real question is, did they do an actual statistical study? All prime time shows vs all shows in both HD and SD, as well as a study of the ratings of all the shows that went from just SD to both HD and SD?

An article like this is hard to take at face value. It's vague regarding it's evidence, and uses just a couple of examples, like 'Lost'--a show that certainly has a few factors for it's downward spiral of ratings. The real question is, did they do an actual statistical study? All prime time shows vs all shows in both HD and SD, as well as a study of the ratings of all the shows that went from just SD to both HD and SD?

Magid has done some in-house research on it, which Rob refers to when he says it doesn't make a difference. But like you point out with Lost, there are many factors into what makes a show's ratings change. So that even if you survey everything that's made the switch, you'd still be hard pressed to say the results were *because* they went HD. Especially since shows tend to get upgraded when they're doing well in the first place.

Interesting ... thanks for the tip

That is not a comdemnation of going HD - as seen, whether SD News, Reality Shows, Scrubs, SD Sports, News Channels etc, it takes more than HD to get ratings.

It could actually be argued on numbers alone that Lost has gone down in ratings as the number of HD Viewers go up.

Now, most could see that is on face value - a true statement - but its also a ridiculous conclusion that if the number of HD sets had remained constant for the last 2 years that LOST would still be at the top of the ratings.

The same argument could be made for West Wing.

Now, although Letterman has not benefited overall from HD - its interesting that CBS has seen statistically significant (meaning one that cannot be explained through random chance as the HD Local News Debuts could be classified) increase in Letterman's Ratings since they put highlights online.

Thus, there is much more evidence that low resolution online content has increased ratings than evidence that HD had increased ratings.


At the end of the day, I suspect HD does make a difference ... just a statistically very, very small one. Now, if HD penetration was 100 percent ...


And statistically insignificant, thus it cannot even be shown to have a relationship.

Oh yes, remember the flops on MyNetworkTV that were all HD.

And the only 2 shows on CW to break a 3 in the ratings - (American Next Top Model/Beauty and the Geek) are both SD.

You could almost make a case for not going HD off these 2 networks :(

That is not a comdemnation of going HD - as seen, whether SD News, Reality Shows, Scrubs, SD Sports, News Channels etc, it takes more than HD to get ratings. The vast majority of TV viewers watch TV shows because of the content of the show, not whether or not it's in HD. That goes against what is apparently "the norm" around this forum.

That said, I've watched shows because they're in HD but in the end, if I don't like the content, actors, etc, I stop (CSI, all three, for example). It's sad seeing people watch a show because of the "HD-ness" only.

This has been mentioned before, but did color help ratings? Here's some fun trivia about the top shows of 1960:

1. Gunsmoke: Black and White until 1966
2. Wagon Train: Black and White until 1962 when it moved to ABC
3. Have Gun Will Travel: Black and White
4. The Andy Griffith Show: Black and White until 1965
5. The Real McCoys: Black and White
6. Rawhide: Black and White
7. Candid Camera: Black and White like reality TV should be
8. The Untouchables: Black and White
9. The Price is Right: In Color on ABC!
10. The Jack Benny Hour: Black and White
11. Dennis the Menace: Black and White, even on Sundays
12. The Danny Thomas Show: Black and White
13. My Three Sons: Black and White until 1965
14. 77 Sunset Strip: Black and White
15. The Ed Sullivan Show: Black and White until 1965 (sorry Beatles)
16. Perry Mason: Black and White
17. Bonanza: Color from the very first episode!
18. The Flintstones: Black and White until 1963
19. The Red Skelton Show: Switched back to Black and White in 1959 (due to CBS discontinuing color), back to color in 1965
20. Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Black and White

So, wow, two shows in color. I bet those color sets were flying off the shelves in 1960.

It wasn't until 1965-1966 that most of the top 20 shows were in color (ten years after NTSC color broadcasting started) and a lot of these like Gomer Pyle, Red Skelton, Andy Griffith, Bewitched, Beverly Hillbillies, and others had been doing fine in B&W the previous season. Do you think the new big shows of 1965 like Batman, Get Smart, Green Acres, and Hogan's Heroes were hits because they were color?

Imagine if the forum were around in the sixties:

"When are we going to get more color channels?"

"They only have one show in color. What a waste of bandwidth!"

There would also be some angry guy constantly yelling:

"Why did the FCC ban CBS's sequential color? It looked great on my 14" set and now it's worthless! This NTSC crap is just a scam brought to you by RCA/NBC. It looks like crap because you can't cram good color into the same bandwidth as good black and white. Any qualified engineer will tell you it needs at least twice the bandwidth. Now people with perfectly good black and white sets have to put up with dot crawl and other garbage from the color signal that no one is watching!

The NTSC sets I see down at Sears are collecting dust because no one is foolish enough to buy one. They're insanely expensive because electronic color will always be expensive and it will never look good! The BBC evaluated NTSC and rejected it outright, preferring to stick to their 405 line black and white system!

Soon foreign countries will have superior color systems while our color television will be the laughingstock of the world! Imagine a world where Communist countries have better color television than ours. The thought terrifies me."

:D

Heck I'm even waiting for BSG to gome on UHD before I watch it now.

Which means you hurt ratings for BSG since Universal only cares about BSG's ratings on Sci-Fi, not the delayed UHD.

When I first got into HD, I watched a lot of crap I normally wouldn't, but now that I've been immersed in the world of HD for several years now, I watch whatever interests me, HD or SD.

Of course if it is in HD, I watch it HD and will be pissed if it is not HD, but I still watch shows that aren't in HD if they are good. My wife is gonna make us watch Survivor and Amazing Race, HD or not. I'll watch Boston Legal, AI, Heroes, BSG, Jericho, and Lost even if it was only in SD.

I suspect most people are the same way: Once they get into HDTV (properly, mind you), they watch "Sunrise Earth" and other stuff, but once you get used to it, you just end up watching the shows you always watched, HD or not. It's just that if the show is HD, and your local affiliate/sat is screwy, you'll be mad. And if a show you like is in SD but you wish it was an HD show, you'll discover this forum and complain here. :D lol

I agree with those who have concluded that, so far at least, whether a show is available in HD has little to do with its popularity. Of course, that’s because those who have HDTVs are still a distinct minority of the TV viewing public. But all of that is starting to change. As HDTV sets represent a larger and larger percentage of the market, the networks will pay much more attention to the owners of HDTVs than they do now.

I saw the same thing in the early ‘60s when I bought my first color TV. As noted by others, there wasn’t much color programming then. In fact, Disney’s Wonderful World of Color and Bonanza were it for awhile. That’s understandable because in 1964, color TVs made up only 3.1 percent of American TV sets. But that all changed, and quickly. As color TV sets became the norm instead of the exception, more and more programs were produced in color until, finally, nearly all of them were in color. I am confident that we will see the same thing happen with HDTV.

Which means you hurt ratings for BSG since Universal only cares about BSG's ratings on Sci-Fi, not the delayed UHD.Serves Sci-Fi right -- they should have their own HD channel up and running, and fully deployed nationwide by now. :D

Just kidding.

Planet Earth Delivers for Discovery

by Alex Weprin -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/28/2007 4:17:00 PM


Planet Earth, the new miniseries on the Discovery Channel and Discovery HD Theater, debuted with strong ratings Sunday night.


The show averaged 5.7 million viewers over the three hour premiere, peaking during the 9 p.m. presentation of the “Mountains” episode, with 6.1 million viewers. The show brought in 12 million viewers total over the three hour period and had a 3.6 HH rating, the networks third highest ever.


According to TNS media research’s set top box data in a major market, the Discovery HD Theater presentation of Planet Earth increased the program’s overall household rating by 15%. An estimated 500,000 homes watched the program in HD over the three hour period.

Discovery and Discovery HD Theater will air two new episodes of Planet Earth every Sunday, beginning at 8 p.m., for the next four weeks.

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6428815.html?display=Breaking+News

Not sure how Planet Earth's ratings has anything to do with this thread about HD improving ratings - as the it was on in SD at the same time, you cannot begin to extrap out that the 15% that watched in HD would not have watched if it wasn't in HD....Or, as the lawyers say, are "conclusions drawn from facts not in evidence"?

BattleStar Galactica

Which means you hurt ratings for BSG since Universal only cares about BSG's ratings on Sci-Fi, not the delayed UHD.
Actually, he didnt hurt the ratings at all. Whether you watch a TV show or not has no affect on the ratings.
That is, unless your a Neilsen viewer.

I won't watch anything that isn't in HD nor anything that is lousy, which narrows my choices.

All things being equal, and given a choice, we will watch programs in HD vs. SD. We didn't buy a HDTV just to watch SD programing :D

Which means you hurt ratings for BSG since Universal only cares about BSG's ratings on Sci-Fi, not the delayed UHD.

SOOOOO That means that HD would HELP ratings for this show. Because I would again watch it on SciFi.

If that was the case, how do you reconcile the fact that the week after most local HD Newscasts have gone live, their first week of HD is lower than their last week of SD in the overnight metered markets?


I dunno....I guess we're in a minority here.
As soon as one of my local news stations switched to HD, I switched
with it, although my preferred news station was and still is in SD....
and I emailed them about it too.

we have sony 60xbr2 and a2 hd dvd with e*'s hd package. i only watch hd channels and movies. why bother with sd. i will not watch any sd channels on that tv. the hd is just too good and i can't stomach the poor pq. the only sd i watch on that set is sd movies not available in the hd dvd format. so how does neilson track that?