Abstract
The observed drops in the ratings of television programs on Fridays and Saturdays are likely a result of two factors: intrinsic contraction in demand for television watching and endogenous scheduling. I decompose the observed weekend effect into the effects from these two factors. To this end, I estimate a viewer choice model that uses aggregate Nielsen ratings data for prime-time network television shows over 11 years. The long span of the data enables me to control for television series qualities. The estimation results reveal that the estimated weekend effect is dampened as the empirical model accounts for variation in the program quality compositions. The counterfactual analysis that is based on the estimates of the preferred specification indicates that endogenous scheduling accounts for two-thirds of the rating drops on weekends.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Among the 450 television series considered, only 267 series were broadcast on the same day throughout its entire first season.
Nielsen’s minute-by-minute rating data are available for purchase.
Shachar and Emerson (2000)’s estimation results show that the switching costs are higher during a program than between programs and especially when the program’s category is drama.
Note that the extra utility term does not depend on the show categories of the previous and current programs. In the data, it is found that for comedy, the lead-in effect is greater if a program that is in the same show category follows. For action drama and reality television, the lead-in effect is smaller if a program that is in the same show category follows. One could argue this is evidence that there is some diminishing marginal utility from watching shows in the same genre in a row for some genres.
Shachar and Emerson (2000) allow viewers to switch channels every quarter hour, and also allow the switching costs to vary with show categories and viewer demographics. They find that the switching costs increase for female and older viewers, and for genres with a continuous plot such as drama.
More recently, many original cable series became very successful. For example, AMC’s The Walking Dead became the most popular cable series in cable television history. Its fifth season premiere retained 17.3 million viewers which would roughly correspond to a broadcast household rating of 6–8.
Wilbur (2008) finds that viewers most prefer watching television on Friday evenings, followed by Thursday, and that advertisers most value Thursday evenings, followed by Friday. He then attributes the Thursday scheduling to the interaction between the two sides while providing explanations for the less intuitive results with regard to the Friday scheduling.
Sometimes a series is cancelled because of an increase in costs rather than a decline in ratings. Production costs tend to rise as television series stretch into several seasons—mainly because the actors and the others individuals who are involved in the production demand higher salaries. For an example, read http://www.today.com/id/10881944/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/th-heaven-canceled-due-cost-network/#.VhI7V_mqqko.
Yeo and Miller (2016) explain how the use of a lagged instrumental variable identifies a term that captures state-dependence of a choice, such as the extra utility term in this study or switching costs in their study.
Given the discrete choice demand system, program qualities are strategic complements, which implies that a broadcasting company will not put a strong program against its competitors’ weak programs.
Note that only the rating of a program affects the subsequent program’s rating. The distribution of viewers from the preceding program matters only through the assumption about the timing of the decision because viewers of the preceding program automatically become available to watch the following program, whereas viewers on other channels may be stuck with continuing programs. Otherwise, the distribution would not matter because there is no correlation across preferences for show categories.
References
Berry, S. (1994). Estimating discrete-choice models of product differentiation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 242–262.
Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica, 63(4), 841–890.
Danaher, P., & Mawhinney, D. (2001). Optimizing television program schedules using choice modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 298–312.
Einav, L. (2007). Seasonality in the US motion picture industry. The Rand Journal of Economics, 38(1), 127–145.
Esteves-Sorenson, C., & Perretti, F. (2012). Micro-costs: Inertia in television viewing. The Economic Journal, 122(563), 867–902.
Goettler, R. (2012). Advertising rates, audience composition, and competition in the network television industry. Working paper.
Goettler, R., & Shachar, R. (2001). Spatial competition in the network television industry. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(4), 624–656.
Kennedy, R. (2002). Strategy fads and competitive convergence: An empirical test for herd behavior in prime-time television programming. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(1), 57–84.
Moshkin, N., & Shachar, R. (2002). The asymmetric information model of state dependence. Marketing Science, 21(4), 435–454.
Rust, R., & Alpert, M. (1984). An audience flow model of television viewing choice. Marketing Science, 3(2), 113–124.
Rust, R., Kamakura, W., & Alpert, M. (1992). Viewer preference segmentation and viewing choice models for network television. Journal of Advertising, 21(1), 1–18.
Shachar, R., & Anand, B. (1998). The effectiveness and targeting of television advertising. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 7(3), 363–396.
Shachar, R., & Emerson, J. (2000). Cast demographics, unobserved segments, and heterogenous switching costs in a television viewing choice model. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 173–186.
Wilbur, K. (2008). A two-sided, empirical model of television advertising and viewing markets. Marketing Science, 27(3), 356–378.
Wilbur, K., Xu, L., & Kempe, D. (2013). Correcting audience externalities in television advertising. Marketing Science, 32(6), 892–912.
Yeo, J., & Miller, D. (2016). Estimating switching costs with market share data: An application to medicare part D. Working paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yeo, J. The Weekend Effect in Television Viewership and Prime-Time Scheduling. Rev Ind Organ 51, 315–341 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-016-9545-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-016-9545-9