A record average viewership via traditional TV Network and Cable distribution of 108.7 million (and many more who only saw part of the game) vs Internet distribution of a record 3 million, up from 2.1 million last year (and a total of 10 million who saw some of the game via Internet distribution, according to Yahoo News.
Depending on what you want you could spin this as “Internet Distribution increases 43% year on year”; or perhaps “Internet distribution was less than 3% of the traditional TV audience”. Both are factually true. The traditional method was down slightly (ranking as only the third most watched game) but very healthy.
Of course, this type of real-time, grand sporting event is exactly what the traditional TV and cable channels do very, very well and I believe will continue to do very well, long into the future. It may be all they’re left with, but – at least in my lifetime – I don’t expect an “Internet distribution only” Superbowl.
When you talk about movies, comedy, drama, and that type of TV fare, then Internet distribution isn’t quite so far “out there”
4 replies on “Superbowl score: Internet distribution 3 million; TV 108.7 million!”
RT @philiphodgetts: Superbowl score: Internet distribution 3 million; TV 108.7 million! Tradition wins the trophy! http://t.co/gdE2YRqO
I really Think blog, “Superbowl score: Internet distribution 3 million; TV 108.
7 million!†ended up being just right! I reallycould not agree together with
you more! At last looks like I reallyidentified a weblog truly worth reading.
Thanks for your time, Quyen
Philip,
I agree entirely that the SuperBowl is something that old TV does well. Particularly something like the SuperBowl where even the advertising is part of the experience.
When I watch it I want to be watching *and experiencing* exactly the same as everyone else with the same ads, the same commentary and the same camera angles.
With the usual shows and movies the ads get in the way and I’m prepared to pay a little extra to avoid them and get them from Flickstr or Amazon.
Right at this moment I’m watching cricket on broadcast TV and following the comments about the commentary and the game on Twitter. Broadcast will always do “live experience” best.
Maybe I had my head under a rock but I didn’t know the Super Bowl was going to streamed until I stumbled upon it day of. Was this advertised much? Leading up to the game I remember thinking, man I wish this was on NBC because NBC streams their NFL games.
I think live events like this are certainly one thing TV handles well, but I don’t see it as untouchable. Watching live football on NBC.com, for example, gives you DVR ability as well as a choice of 4 alt camera angles besides the broadcast feed. Watching pay per view UFC fights on an Xbox 360 has a level of interactivity to it (live voting on winners just before a fight, stats on demand, etc.,) as well as a second screen experience if you have a smart phone or tablet (via the cross platform SmartGlass app from MS). I know streaming PPV UFC fights to your computer gives you DVR functionality but I’m not sure if watching on the Xbox does as well.
I don’t think streaming will replace live TV for big event watching in the foreseeable future but I do think it will take a significant cut of TV viewership down the road.