The changes raise the question of whether channel placement has an effect on ratings.B Do stations gain an advantage from having a lower channel number, or are channel choices so diverse and complicated to begin with that channel placement doesn’t matter?

Radio stations have long understood the value of being in the “middle of the dial,” but it is less clear whether such an effect also exists in television.B Our initial findings are ambiguous–channel location seems to matter in certain instances but not in others.

Several networks have negotiated for more favorable places in the line-up.B For example, Discovery and Discovery Kids are moving from the programming guidebs figurative continental shelf of the 100bs into adjacent spots in the shallow waters of the low 20bs.

Other networks are making room for the next cohort of high-bidders.B CNN is vacating its spot for FX at the broadcast-like channel 10 and moving down to channel 78.

For the majority of Time Warner Cable subscribers who donbt follow cable trade press, the line-up shuffle will come as a surprise.B Those unprepared viewers looking for Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network and plugging the familiar two 2bs into their remote controls are likely to experience a disruption to their lean-back experience upon finding Discovery Kids on their screens.

If the accidental viewer find herself ensnared in Discovery Kids programming and takes in a commercial pod or two, the network may count this disruption as a happy accident.B And if the accidental viewer falls fast for the Discovery Networksb brand and returns to its channels enough to be considered a loyal viewer, then the happy accident becomes part of the justification for working with the cable operator for a lower channel number.

The question is how many of these happy accidents can a network expect to gain with a lower channel number and to lose with a higher channel number.B Set top box data can help answer the question.

The figures below show how audiences with similar affinities for program genre tune in to the same program when the program appears in different places in the channel line-up.B Each figure identifies the Genre Segment analyzed, the network, the program, the date range, whether new or all episodes were considered and includes a table with the neighborhood head-end, the channel number, the average rating for the program at that channel number, and a box plot to illustrate the variability around the average rating.

For Bravobs The Fashion Show, the effect of the lower channel number on ratings is unambiguous and positive.B The Reality Watchers, the subset of all viewers who have demonstrated a proclivity for unscripted television, tune in at different rates depending on where Bravo appears in the channel line-up.B In Malibu, where Bravo appears at channel 42, new episodes of The Fashion Show score an average rating of 4.6 among the Reality Watchers.B In Riverside, where Bravo appears at channel 135, the same episodes receive an average rating of 1.0 among the same audience.

For USAbs longer running and critically acclaimed Psych, the effect of channel line-up placement is harder to detect.B The Remote Detectives, the subset of viewers with a demonstrated preference for crime dramas, tune in to new episodes of Psych at almost the same rate in Monterrey Park where USA is located at channel 8 and in Riverside where USA is located at channel 60.

Finally, for CNNbs Larry King, lower channel numbers have a positive effect on ratings, except for in Malibu with both the highest channel number at 70 and ratings among the highest.B Fake New Followers, the subset of viewers with an affinity sarcastic news programming that carries over to the real news, tune in to Larry King at higher rates in Monterey Park where CNN is located at channel 10 than in Riverside and Longbeach where CNN is located at channels 48 and 61, respectively.

Since my earlier post, not only has TV Everywhere received a lot of coverage in the trade and business press, but I’ve also spent some more time thinking about the topic, talking about it to folks in the industry. I decided to write another post on it, examining some of the high-level issues relative to its long-term success. (Disclosure; I am a shareholder of Time Warner (TWX) stock and was a senior executive at TWX subsidiary AOL for a short period of time.)

I am convinced that the key to TV Everywhere’s long-term success will be its user interface. That point may seem obvious and common-sensical, but then again, obviousness and common sense are all too often forgotten when it comes to developing and implementing business strategies in large, multinational corporations. Here is why I believe that the user interface will be so critical to TV Everywhere:

• The brand is at risk; implementation matters. While the business driver behind TV Everywhere may be the need for video programmers to assure cable operators that they won’t permit content that operators are paying many billions of dollars for to “leak” directly to viewers on the Internet for free, to viewers, it is all about them. To them, the gateways or interfaces that bring them the programming will directly affect their attitudes toward that content’s brand, whether it be HBO or TNT or Court TV. When it is all about “me,” the interface is the embodiment of the relationship.

• Intuitiveness, elegance and ease-of-use are critical. TV Everywhere will require some relatively complicated cross-platform rights management and real-time authentication. Bad, clunky interfaces create frustrated, unhappy viewers. Intuitive, elegant and easy-to-use interfaces not only create happy viewers, but real market separation. Just ask Apple and its customers.

• Critical step in another long-term programmer, operator tug-of-war. The history of the relationships between programmer and system operators has always been one of mutual envy, tension, fighting for leverage, standoffs, and gamesmanship. Managing the barrier between paid television and free Internet will be all of that and more. In the long term, both the programmers and system operators want direct relationships with the viewers. In a media world of scarce distribution — the television landscape for the past several decades — operators had the upper hand, which is why their ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is so high. However, in a media world of plentiful distribution and scarce attention — the television landscape that is emerging — programmers may be able to take the upper hand. Issues like how authentication “keys” are managed will be crtical in new services like TV Everywhere.

No matter how you view it, TV Everywhere changes and expands the interfaces between viewers and branded video programming. In my mind, the quality of the interfaces and how they are controlled will determine how consumers view and use it and will determine how viewers will manage their long-term relationships with the operators and programmers. It will be all about the interface. What do you think?

(This post originally ran on MediaPost’s Online Spin on April 16th, 2009.)