For those waiting impatiently for the first digital viewing figures
from BARB, the assumption has always been that the numbers would be
pretty bad news for broadcasting’s old guard. You didn’t have to be all
that bright to predict that the smaller, nippier, digital channels would
cut to shreds the cumbersome armadas of old-fashioned broadcasters.
Public service broadcasters like the BBC and ITV with all their
edification quotas and commitments to worthiness would look pretty silly
in the digital age.
The early digital adopters would be especially immune to the old-world
charms of the existing big networks.
Wrong. According to the figures released last week, although the 24
digital channels on the survey took a combined 6.9 per cent share, ITV
and BBC 1 held up remarkably well - ITV, which had a viewing share of
around 32 per cent across all homes (and 25.6 per cent in existing
multi-channel homes), scored 23.8 per cent in digital homes, while BBC 1
took a digital homes share of 18.2 per cent as opposed to its 26.8 per
cent all-homes score. The BBC as a whole took heart from the digital
report, with BBC 2 increasing its share - a bizarre, not to say
potentially dubious result, but worth celebrating in any event.
ITV was hugely heartened too. Its decent showing comes despite the fact
that this research was conducted in homes with the Sky Digital system
(ONdigital homes are not included at all at this stage) which doesn’t
carry ITV at all. To tune into Coronation Street you have to come off
the digital platform and switch to analogue. On the other hand, ITV had
an incredibly strong schedule for the week (beginning 7 November)
covered by these figures, including mainstays like Who Wants to be a
Millionaire? and a big one-off in the form of the Rugby World Cup
final.
It also has to be said that there is a huge health warning plastered all
over these numbers. One week’s worth of results from only 148 homes is
just the beginning of the story. What, if anything, can we take from
these figures?
Doug Read, the research and strategy director of Media-Vest, says the
main thing we can read into them is that digital satellite homes are
inhabited by some very sad people indeed - at 29 hours, they watch two
hours a week more than the average.
Read comments: ’There’s a truly enormous amount of viewing going on in
these homes. What sort of lives do they have? My first impression was
that the channel which has the most to worry about is Channel 4 - though
there may well be extenuating circumstances. But my guess is that the
figures will go up and down like a yo-yo - more so than in analogue
viewing homes - according to what sort of programming is available in
any given week.’
Read agrees that the health warnings - about the small panel size and
the fact that the panel doesn’t include ONdigital homes - should be
borne in mind. He adds: ’There will always be cracks in this sort of
data and the worry is that it will completely disintegrate in your hands
if you examine it too closely. But I don’t find it entirely surprising
that ITV and BBC 1 have done all right, because these are the channels
with the biggest programme fixtures like EastEnders. In a world where
distinctive programming will become increasingly rare, the people who’ve
got that programming will feel the benefit. We may be seeing the first
evidence of that trend in these figures.’
As Read points out, the figures brought little cheer to Channel 4 - or
Channel 5. Channel 5 dropped to a 2.7 per cent share in digital homes -
less than half its normal level - and Channel 4 dropped from its
all-homes 10 per cent share to 5.7 per cent. Is Hugh Johnson, the head
of research at Channel 4, worried? Not particularly, he reveals: ’Our
take on this is that there should be 340 homes on the digital panel,
reflecting the fact that digital homes are now 8 per cent of the total.
This research was based on a panel of less than 150 homes. Also, they
are early adopters, they haven’t had digital for very long so the
figures perhaps represent the fact that people are experimenting with
the technology rather than saying anything about programmes. It’s only
one week’s worth of figures and it will take a while to settle down -
there aren’t any real conclusions you can draw from this. It has to be
said also that the viewers in this research are downmarket 25- to
44-year-olds which isn’t our marketplace in any case.’
Almost everyone agrees that the novelty factor is probably a big
distorting element in these figures. But Greg Turzynski, a managing
partner of Optimedia, says that it’s no surprise to find the smaller
terrestrial channels losing a proportionately greater viewing share -
the same trend was spotted by Optimedia’s own inhouse research. He has a
theory to explain that trend: ’As consumers get more choice they
exercise it by seeking programmes they like. Digital offers them an even
greater chance of finding what they really want to watch.
Our analysis of BARB data shows that digital viewing seems to be
particularly strong on weekdays and during the daytime. The digital film
channels are also doing well.’
Sky, which declines to comment on the figures, should be pleased.
Although he shares the general reservations about reading too much into
the figures, Matthew Blackbourn, the executive media director of
StarCom, states: ’It would appear that digital-only channels could make
inroads into the share of the traditional channels. A concern for
Channel 5 will be that it suffered in a week with a relatively strong
movie line-up. We would also predict that the loss on Channel 4 would be
against their younger viewers who are more likely to find something
suited to their lifestyles in the greater cross-section of channels on
digital.’
