The Network Society - University of Massachusetts Amherst

250 The Network Society
Table 9.2 PVR Penetration and Commercial Skipping Estimates
PVR Negative Impacts 2004E 2005E 2006E 2007E 2008E 2009E 2014E 2016E
PVR Assumptions
22 PVR Penetration 6% 11% 16% 20% 22% 25% 25% 35%
23 PVRS @ Year-End 7 12 18 22 25 28 42 46
24 Growth of PVRs 103% 85% 50% 22% 14% 12% 6% 4%
PVR Impact Calculations
25 Pct of Recorded Commercials Skipped 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
26 Pct of Total Commercials Skipped in
PVR Households 14.81% 15.96% 17.16% 18.40% 19.69% 21.02% 27.43% 29.99%
27 Effective Average Homes Reduced
by PVRs (0.96) (1.92) (3.09) (4.05) (4.92) (5.88) (11.46) (13.68)
28 Advertising “At Risk” in All PVR
HHLDs ($mil) $(560) $(1,172) $(2,015) $(2,782) $(3,587) $(4,522) $(10,834) $(13,980)
29 Pct of TV Advertising “At Risk” (1)% (2)% (3)% (4)% (4)% (5)% (10)% (11)%
30 Adding Demographic Premium 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 110% 110%
31 Adjusted “At Risk” in All PVR
HHLDs ($ mil) $(700) $(1,465) $(2,519) $(3,478) $(4,484) $(5,653) $(11,917) $(15,378)
32 Adjusted Pct of TV Advertising
“At Risk” (1)% (2)% (4)% (5)% (5)% (6)% (11)% (12)%
Source: Sanford Bernstein & CO