Nielsen Blog

> [citation needed] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOgOP_aqqtg > got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX? http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vs-android/ http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+android+customer+satisfaction U.S. iPhone users have the highest customer satisfaction, despite having greater dissatisfaction with their carrier, AT&T, which is responsible for a pretty big portion of a phone user's experience.

As for surviving direct shilling, I present "The Biggest Loser" as a data point. The most recent season became a barrage of direct product placement experiments. http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/04/jillian-michaels-dishes-on… http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_biggest_loser_5/2… More discussion of product placement rankings at the Neilson blog: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/amazing-race-apprentice-i… This isn't even close to new, we're just finally catching up with online media.

No. You are wrong. Anecdotally, my older father is a way heavier user of apps than me. He listens to a lot of radio (NPR and even Pandora!) and loves the tip calculator and about a million other apps. Kids loving playing games so much on their parents phones that Nintendo actually acknowledged the iPhone as a competitive threat on their earnings call. Statistically, 75% of iPhone users use apps, which is 5x more than other phone users. Nielsen: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-users-watch-m… . Be careful about assuming things. Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer.

Which may go some of the way to explaining the high churn rate. I think you're making an interesting point there. According to Nielson the churn-rate at twitter is 60-70%. People hear about it in the media, sign up, try it out... and move on. A large part of the media hype is based on the high registration rate and on anecdotical evidence like "Ashton Kutcher has 1 million followers". I have yet to see someone make a headline about the fact that circa 700.000 of these followers are dead accounts and that the registration-rate is a meaningless metric for a free service. [1] http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/twitter-quitters-pos…

TV lost? While I agree with many of the points PG brings up, I feel something is missing. According to Nielson, TV viewership is at an all time high (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/total-us-television-viewers/). Also, Oscars had a 13% increase from last year with 36.3M viewers. 50+M viewers watched Obama's inauguration on TV.. not on their computers. And of course, we know that those teenagers who are using social apps still cast more votes for their favorite american idol contestant than the sum of adults cast for president. (btw, if anyone knows where to get an annual histogram of viewership in US, that is what I was really looking for). TV viewership may indeed plummet in the future, but as of right now its at an all time high. Then, I can't help but notice that I still procure my internet from my cable provider. And that same cable provider is not only actively fighting against network neutrality, but they are also blocking my ability to download anything from Torrent. They are far from beaten. Lastly, what is the real difference between watching shows on my TV verse Computer. They are both using digital pipes, they both have microprocessors, memory and HDs - one has a bigger screen than the other (usually). The only real difference, and increasingly so, is that one is proprietary, and one is open. TV has not lost.. their content is (unfortunately) as relevant and abundant to the average American as ever. All TV has lost is utter dominance - much…

Do you have a citation for that? According to Nielsen, Americans spend about 35% on "Other", so I'd like to know where your 90% figure comes from. Page 3 here - http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/ Older numbers from 2010 - http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/what-americans-do-on… At the very least, I think the meme is inaccurate.

Who really wants all those networks? I think $12.50 is perfectly acceptable for the second largest and likely most desirable premium network out there. I'd expect that most folks probably watch fewer than a dozen channels with any regularity. Nielsen says that the average household was receiving 130 channels yet only watching 18 of them in 2008 [1]. I think we eventually get to an a-la-carte system with app-like monthly price points where premium content falls comes in at $5, $10 or more and there are dozens of solid options in the $1-3 range with loads of free (ad-supported) content. 1: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tva_200…

Rubbish. Going back to September 2011 as I can't find any newer stats: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/40-percent-of-u-s-mo…

Here's one source, though I don't think anyone's ever accused Nielsen of being particularly scientific... http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/i-want-my-iptv… "Americans spend 35 hours each week watching content across screens, and 94 percent of that is still on a traditional television." (This isn't exactly the same as people who for-sure don't "want to" drop traditional TV, but my suspicion is that anyone consuming 35 hours (!!) a week needs the 100-channels-24-7 stream of traditional cable or satellite to sate them. Pay-as-you-go has a way to go before it's cost-effective compared to that.)

I found it odd that there were no comments on the original Nielsen blog post — http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=32494 — so I left one politely pointing out the inaccuracies. It's being held in moderation. I doubt it'll ever see the light.

I'm not sure why they don't just pull the app. They admit that it's bringing them virtually no users and it's a frustrating experience. With only a 1.3% market share (1), what reasons can there be to bother with it? (1) http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=32494

Only three years ago we were hearing how twitter was doomed because teens don't tweet! [1][2] On the other hand, while I'm not a teen (by a long shot), I do find facebook more restrictive in terms of the things I feel I can say. Somehow twitter is more anonymous, despite being more public. On facebook I get the impression that people are more likely to pay attention to my ramblings. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/why-dont-teens-tweet-we-asked-over-10… [2] http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/teens-dont-tweet-twi…

> Netflix streaming is trying to do the same to video Think about the prices for a moment. Suppose you pay $7.99 per month for streaming. According to some recent estimates (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/january-2011-online-… the average Netflix customer watches 11 hours of streaming video per month. That means about $0.73 per hour of video watched. Seems relatively reasonable. Even for users who watch several times that many hours, it still seems reasonable.

I would hazard more people have access to a scanner (even the one at work) than own a smartphone. That's probably not true; Reading The US smartphone landscape (http://www.asymco.com/2011/11/06/the-us-smartphone-landscape/). Also, Nielsen points out that 43% of all cell phones in the US are smartphones; it's just a matter of time before every cell phone sold is going to be a smartphone. Apple's iPhone 3GS is free with a two-year contract. 62% of users 25-34 years old own smartphones: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/generation-app-62-of… So requiring a smartphone (iOS and Android have a combined installed base of 63 million devices in the US) isn't as whacky as it sounds.

Unlimited Voice and SMS to other carriers is expensive. Look at Twilio's pricing or Skype's pricing, or any other voip provider. Text and calling to your own network is essentially free, but off network gets expensive. Granted, I don't know how big of a cut these voip providers take, but I can't imagine it's that high. Put it together with usage data, you quickly get over $19: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-teen-mobile-repo… Edit: Just want to point out, I'm not saying this is a bad bet to make. They can attract a ton of consumers with a super low cost, and if those consumers do most of their communication in-network, eventually they'll be in the green.

On a related note, just looking at Android adoption, it's really interesting to see Android devices turning up the heat. In the US alone: iPhones are 28% of market.. Android phones: 43%: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/in-u-s-market-new-sm… Compare to July.. 39% and 28%: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/in-u-s-smartphone-ma…

That's a different source though, and figures for the world not the US, so not directly comparable. Neilsen do update the figures every so often in items on their blog, but that was the latest historical graph. This entry from last month has the figures for June (so six months since the last figures shown on the graph) Android up 14 points to 40%, RIM down 8 points to 19% and Apple still steady at 28%: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/40-percent-of-u-s-mo… I believe someone on hacker news was copying these monthly updates into a spreadsheet so they could make their own graphs without having to buy the full report and sharing the results, you might be able to find a link if you search.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=28237 Android has 38% install base vs 27% for iPhone.

This: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=28237 Is a lot more helpful. There's still a lot of market to cover, so it's not like iOS and Android are cannibalizing each others sales yet.

Nielson's data: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/in-us-smartphones-no… Nielson's analysis is equally bad. FTA, "Android share of recent acquirers flattened in 2011; Apple is now driving smartphone growth." This is simply not true. Android is still grabbing the largest portion of new smartphone users.

It wasn't a real study, it was some sort of survey done by The Nielsen Company (the ones who measure TV viewership): http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-smartphone-marke… It doesn't describe the selection method, the numbers of interviewees or even the margin of error. And the "desirability difference" is 1%.

115.9m households have TVs[1], so 23.6m accounts is just over 20% of households with TVs subscribing. That seems more reasonable. The 7% figure assumes 1 account per person. [1] - http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/number-of-u-s-…

9% of iPad users haven't downloaded an app. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/connected-devices-do…

Here are some statistics about this September 2009: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-u-s-web-brands-a…

> We have a generation of people addicted to a sedentary activity in a way that's never happened in human history. Heh. Heard of this other addictive sedentary activity that people call "TV"? http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/americans-watching-m… The _average_ America watches 153 hours of video per month (2009). 5.5 hours per day on average. Looking up TV addiction yields many very similar articles. I expect that some people are more susceptible to gaming than TV, and others the opposite. But the results from TV seem very comparable to gaming: some is probably fine, maybe even beneficial depending on your choices. Too much is bad for your physical, mental, and social well-being. kb

Original article from Nielsen, with related charts: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-teen-mobile-repo…

BlackBerry loyalty seems to have changed if Nielsen's data is anything to go by. According to recent figures, only 42% of BlackBerry owners want a new BlackBerry as their next mobile device. In comparison, 72% of Android users want to stick with Android, and iPhone users seem to be most loyal with 89% wanting a new iPhone. Source: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/android-soars-but-ip…

Call me crazy, but I think he's jumping to conclusions. There's no way Android grew that fast. Check out this recent report from Nielsen: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vs-android/ It stakes Android at 9%, iPhone at 28%, WinMo at 19%, RIM at 35%. I can't imagine that Android has surged ahead so soon, doubly so since RIM's still leading in sales numbers.

- just some numbers, might be relevant http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/facebook-and-twitter-post-l…

"Millions? Really? I don't think so." 106.5 million people in the US viewed the last Superbowl. According to Nielsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-super-bowl-vi… 51% enjoy the commercials more than the game. Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions". Going back to the original point: the claim was made that people don't want to see ads. Yet ~54 million U.S. Superbowl viewers wanted to see the ads more than the game. The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)