Note: Effective with June 2009 data reporting, Nielsen has made several enhancements to the VideoCensus service, including a panel that is 8 times larger, more granular reporting and improved accuracy and representativeness. These enhancements provide the highest quality data to our clients and the marketplace. For some sites, trending of previously-reported data with current results may show percentage differences attributable to these product enhancements and should only be compared directionally.

VideoCensus Methodology and Metrics:
Nielsen Online’s VideoCensus combines patented panel and census research methodologies to provide an accurate count of viewing activity and engagement along with in-depth demographic reporting. Online video viewing is tracked according to video player, which can be used on site or embedded elsewhere on the Web. For example, if a “Saturday Night Live” clip from NBC.com is embedded on a personal blog, that video would be attributed to NBC because of the NBC video player.

A unique viewer is anyone who viewed a full episode, part of an episode or a program clip during the month. A stream is a program segment. VideoCensus measurement does not include video advertising.

As with many of us who have spent our entire careers on the Internet, I have a bit of media establishment envy. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Internet; I’ve spent the past 10 years analyzing the Web and continue to believe the future is in truly interactive media. Sentiment aside, for the most part Internet professionals have spent much of our careers at the proverbial kids’ table. For far too long the Internet has been relegated to the “experimental” or “emerging media” categories.

Recent developments indicate the Internet is being taken more seriously. Case in point: NBC and Fox joining forces to create Hulu, if for no other reason than to solidify their participation in the increasingly important and transformative online video market. Google reaping ad-driven revenues that were once reserved only for the wilder fantasies of those working in print classifieds. Apple reshaping the entire music industry through innovation of the playback device, distribution and consumer experience. And the latest example of Facebook, transforming the way people congregate, communicate and navigate the Web today.

If the Internet has truly “arrived” and is being taken seriously, why have we not yet seen significant brand advertising dollars follow? Maybe it’s because we’re in the midst of one of the worst global recessions in history. Perhaps it’s because online creative units tend to replicate the print experience instead of redefining the consumer experience. Most likely is that the online ad industry has decided to remain independent—we speak our own, at times arcane, language; we use our own effectiveness measures reinforcing the belief that the Internet is a direct response media; and, we have yet to provide easy methods to help advertisers understand the role of the Internet in the entire marketing mix. In effect, we have made our lives, and potential livelihoods, very difficult.

The good news is there is hope. As a medium the Internet is quite the contender (and brand dollars are beginning to shift its way). To continue growing, the online ad world must take a hard look at itself as part of a broader, media industry-wide context and, as one prominent TV client put to me, “grow up.” The Internet does not exist in a vacuum and we’ve moved past the days when it is practical to operate like it does. Leading marketers look at media from a holistic perspective to reach today’s increasingly connected consumers. So too must anyone participating in the ad industry.

• For more about cross-media advertising, download the complete report: Integrated Measurement Solutions

Note: Effective with June 2009 data reporting, Nielsen has made several enhancements to the VideoCensus service, including a panel that is 8 times larger, more granular reporting and improved accuracy and representativeness. These enhancements provide the highest quality data to our clients and the marketplace. For some sites, trending of previously-reported data with current results may show percentage differences attributable to these product enhancements and should only be compared directionally.

VideoCensus Methodology and Metrics:
Nielsen Online’s VideoCensus combines patented panel and census research methodologies to provide an accurate count of viewing activity and engagement along with in-depth demographic reporting. Online video viewing is tracked according to video player, which can be used on site or embedded elsewhere on the Web. For example, if a “Saturday Night Live” clip from NBC.com is embedded on a personal blog, that video would be attributed to NBC because of the NBC video player.

A unique viewer is anyone who viewed a full episode, part of an episode or a program clip during the month. A stream is a program segment. VideoCensus measurement does not include video advertising.

Note: Effective with June 2009 data reporting, Nielsen has made several enhancements to the VideoCensus service, including a panel that is 8 times larger, more granular reporting and improved accuracy and representativeness. These enhancements provide the highest quality data to our clients and the marketplace. For some sites, trending of previously-reported data with current results may show percentage differences attributable to these product enhancements and should only be compared directionally.

VideoCensus Methodology and Metrics:
Nielsen Online’s VideoCensus combines patented panel and census research methodologies to provide an accurate count of viewing activity and engagement along with in-depth demographic reporting. Online video viewing is tracked according to video player, which can be used on site or embedded elsewhere on the Web. For example, if a “Saturday Night Live” clip from NBC.com is embedded on a personal blog, that video would be attributed to NBC because of the NBC video player.

A unique viewer is anyone who viewed a full episode, part of an episode or a program clip during the month. A stream is a program segment. VideoCensus measurement does not include video advertising.

As fans discussed the emotional and musical details of the memorial, the media coverage and the integration between television and the internet was also a major topic. Nearly 15% of all online discussions about Jackson referenced either a broadcast or social network.

CNN which teamed up with Facebook on streaming coverage was named in 5% of all online conversations. Also on the TV network side, BET came in 2nd with 1.9%, ABC with 1.7%, MTV with 1.44%, NBC/MSNBC with 1.43%, Fox with 1.38% and CBS with 1.0%. Among social networks, Twitter was the most discussed social networking site with 2.4%. Facebook was mentioned in 2% of the conversations, followed by Youtube (1.9%) Myspace (0.6%) and Hulu (0.3%) which streamed FOX News coverage.

“While events like the Jackson memorial, or the Obama inauguration are unique, the way consumers are multitasking between media is quickly becoming the norm,” says Charles Buchwalter, Senior Vice President, Research & Analytics, Nielsen Online. “Even as recently as five years ago, the only choice for community was to gather around the TV screen with co-workers or friends for major events. Now, there are three screens to choose from and, as our research shows, online activity actually reinforces TV viewing. So when outlets like CNN integrate their coverage with Facebook or MSNBC leans heavily on Twitter it demonstrates the public’s growing integrated use of TV, the web, and mobile for getting, and at times reporting, the news.”

Twitter Doesn’t Fail Tweeters

Terms and tags such as #MJ and #Michael Jackson dominated the top trends on Twitter.com yesterday, July 7, 2009. Interestingly, even the misspelling of the King of Pop’s first name as “micheal” also topped trends throughout the day.

Users watch the events of the day unfold on TV and online, often “tweeting” about the coverage offered by various media outlets. Since many were limited to watching coverage online while at work, Twitter featured frequent links and recommendations for live video feeds, most commonly CNN’s live feed with Facebook integration, followed by CBS News/Ustream, MSN, and MSNBC.

During the memorial service, recommendations and links to video stream slowed down, and viewers began to focus more of their “tweets” on the performances at the service, only distracted by news that social media sites Facebook.com and Twitter.com were out of capacity and/or had crashed. However, CNN.com did continue to be the most recommended live feed during programming. Following programming, recommendations shifted to video recordings posted on YouTube.com.

Overall Online Video Usage (U.S.)

 Note: Includes progressive downloads and excludes video advertising. 

YouTube was far and away the top online destination by video streams, with more than 6 billion total streams during the month, and more than 95 million unique viewers. Hulu, Yahoo!, Fox Interactive Media and ABC.com rounded out the top five.

“Historically short form, clip-length video has ruled streaming on the Web—as demonstrated by YouTube’s top spot month after month,” said Jon Gibs, vice president, media & analytics, Nielsen Online. “Hulu, along with pure-play providers like Veoh and the TV networks, have spent the past two years trying to convince consumers that the Internet can be a good place to watch full length programming as well. April’s strong showings of Hulu, Fox, and ABC suggest that consumers are beginning to listen.”

Top Online Video Brands Ranked by Total Streams for April 2009 (U.S., Home and Work)

Download the complete media release

If you think the internet can support unlimited content and you’ve been enjoying your all-you-can-eat web surfing… just wait. At the same time that consumers are increasing their use of the internet to view content at their convenience, some cable companies and ISPs are setting limits on how much content you can access in any given month – or risk paying a penalty for going over the limit the same way your phone company budgets your anytime minutes.

Comcast has levied a 250-gigabyte cap on its users, (that’s about 120 full-length standard definition movies or 65,000 songs). Time Warner Cable has a program of bandwidth caps that lets customers choose from several levels, ranging from 5GB to 40GB at prices that range from $29.95 to $54.90 a month, with the possibility of a 100GB tier in the future. Verizon’s FiOS service has said it has no immediate plan to cap bandwidth usage.

This boom in video streaming is just getting started. Case in point: the uber-growth of Hulu. Unique viewers to that site alone have increased just over five-fold from February 2008 to February 2009. From September 2008 through February 2009, unique viewers have grown 49%, while the time spent viewing has risen 54% (from 114.7 minutes to 176.9 minutes).

Not only are more consumers viewing video content, but they tend to spend increasingly more time on the numerous outlets (iTunes, Netflix, Xbox 360) consumers have for accessing content. YouTube has also just begun offering full-length TV shows and movies at youtube.com/shows.

Cable companies have a right to control their pipes as they wish, but smaller, more cost-effective caps may have a real effect on how not only individuals consume content, but also families with media-hungry kids and teens. Lower caps increasingly come in to play as the premise of caps move away from individual usage to combined usage as habits of downloading movies, video, music, and so on may change given the fear of overage costs, especially as personal and household budgets tighten.

At this point, it appears consumers are not yet willing to accept bandwidth caps.  Responding to consumer and political social media buzz, Time Warner Cable announced that it would halt current expansion plans for caps in additional cities.

How much extra will you as a consumer be willing to pay to see, read, watch or play something over the Internet? Will you change your viewing/consumption habits before you change what you pay for internet access?

YouTube, hulu, and Yahoo! were the top three sites for streaming video, serving up more than 6 billion video streams among them.

Any physicist will tell you energy can neither be created nor destroyed — just changed from one form to another. Much the same can be said these days about television viewing.

Life used to be so simple – one screen, three national broadcast networks and a handful of local TV stations in every market. What’s more, all stations “signed off” sometime after midnight, leaving insomniacs with nothing to watch until morning but the once iconic test pattern. Then along came cable, considerably expanding both the choice of channels and the time available to view them.

Television programming has since migrated online and across a variety of mobile devices, while an array of newer technologies, showcased at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, promise to deliver all sorts of Internet content to digital TV sets anywhere in the home.

Indeed, television now operates 24X7, the maximum allowed by the laws of science; and in an increasingly global and fragmented media marketplace, it is highly unlikely such time will be reduced. How then will consumers continue to change their viewing experiences? As academically interesting as the question is, for all segments of the industry, getting the answer right will separate winners from losers.

Although the amount of TV fare currently streamed online remains small – and appears to have made no real dent in conventional television viewing – it is growing fast. In fact, Nielsen’s latest Three Screen Report shows that video consumption across all three screens is up compared to last year – with TV reaching an all-time high of 151 hours a month. But what happens if the Internet competes more aggressively for television viewers? Will online advertising become more valuable to all concerned?

For broadcast networks, online ads may present new revenue opportunities – even with smaller audiences online – given the ability to better target advertising and, thus, charge higher CPMs. Right now the theory is being tested at Hulu, which in less than a year has become the fourth-largest video service on the web and is delivering ads on 80 percent of its streams.

Cable networks, on the other hand, may have a higher bar to clear. They have two revenue streams – advertising and subscription fees from carriers like MSOs, satellite companies and telcos. So the break-even point is greater. Nonetheless, several cable programmers, including Time Warner and Viacom, are exploring new ways to make their content available online that will closely replicate their current revenue model.

Adding to the uncertainty, however, is the challenge posed by “all you can eat” Internet access pricing. Since significant increases in streaming video will put a lot more stress on current bandwidth, networks may be looking at a reduction in revenues just as online costs for content distribution go up. This is the basis for accusations that some cable internet service providers are intentionally slowing delivery of content to high bandwidth users.

Still, most consumers know or care little about bandwidth issues and business models. For them, it is the viewing experience that counts, and they will continue to go to the ‘best available screen’ for content. At home, big plasma wins. On the road, the laptop often is the screen of choice. And when literally on the move, they go mobile.

What is more, Nielsen data shows that most people prefer the same source of programming, no matter what the medium. In other words, fans of CNN on cable are most likely to visit CNN.com. That is why content providers must continue to make it as painless as possible for loyal viewers to get their content when and where they want it.

Yet that is the easy part. Altering the underlying economics to accommodate change is a lot more problematical.

For example, the aggregate cost of getting access to information across the three screens can be as much as $100 a month or more. But there are inefficiencies associated with each individual service that will have to be addressed:

• Because cable TV subscribers pay for channels they don’t necessarily watch – and prices go up as more content becomes available – some may eventually decide to cut the cord and move to the Internet. As a result, deals between cable operators and content producers will need to shift to payments based on viewing rather than carriage. In that case, cable operators might sell more (or all) ad inventory, or cable networks may pay a percentage of their ad dollars to operators.
• Internet users who regularly stream or download huge files generally pay the same monthly fee as those who check emails once or twice a day, and perhaps visit a few web sites. Clearly, the former costs an ISP much more than the latter. If distribution costs continue to decrease, the point is pretty much moot. But if and when the cost line rises higher and faster than that of revenues, the industry may need to consider selling the internet access in “bands” or “tiers”.
• While providing streaming video or TV on mobile phones is still in relative infancy, most companies are already charging an extra monthly fee for delivering such content. Adaptation by consumers and further advances in technology will drive any changes in the business model.

Just as the transfer of energy from one place to another can produce new forms of power, shifts in consumer activity across the three screens will generate new opportunities. The challenge in both instances is to find the most effective ways to harness them.