Slashdot Mirror


Continued Cord Cutting Hits the Pay TV Business Hard

An anonymous reader writes: Cord cutting is not a new concern for the pay TV business but a recent massive sell-off in media stocks has many in the industry worried. Cable, satellite and TV companies suffered their worst-ever quarterly subscriber declines losing more than half a million accounts, sending stocks tumbling. Researchers say this may be the beginning of the end for the pay TV business. According to analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson: "A year ago, the Pay TV sector was shrinking at an annual rate of 0.1 percent. A year later, the rate at which the Pay TV sector is declining has quickened to 0.7 percent year-over-year. That may not seem like a mass exodus, but it is a big change in a short period of time. And the rate of decline is still accelerating."

15 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Try focusing on keeping subscribers by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they spent their time keeping subscribers happier rather than cannibalizing subscribers of other types of service they wouldn't be losing so much.

    The NUMBER ONE difference in cost between services comes from moving from one to another.

    If my monthly bill didn't slowly creep up after a couple of years, I wouldn't be forced to move to something else. Instead of whoring out for "new bundles", just offer a lower price. 99% of the people moving service don't want to or have to because of coverage, but do because they can save $60 a month with a new "introductory" bundle somewhere else.

    Also there is this strange resistance to allowing users to pick what they want to watch and pay for only that. Believe it or not, some people don't want four channels of QVC, and they'd rather pay the $8 for the weather channel (or whatever) instead of $22 for a bunch of shit along with the weather channel.

    1. Re:Try focusing on keeping subscribers by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The entertainment industry has a long history of ignoring their customers and trying to dictate what is popular.

      For a short time, relatively speaking, they've been able to figure out how to do that and reaping a huge profit while it was happening. The amount of money was so big it blinded them to how the world and their markets were changing. Instead, these industries focused and focused again on how to industrialize (for lack of a better term) popularity of a few things. That is to say the popularity of "Boy Bands" in the '90s wasn't a complete accident and that yes, if you thought there was a formula for them there is indeed is.

      At this point, much of the upper brass in these companies are so entrenched into these methods of profit that they can't see how to get out and maintain their power structures. It's not just the profits that they've become used to. It's also their position. Which is only human. They perceive that they've worked hard to become VP or Pres of their current company and their actions aren't going to disrupt that even if it means long term their industry will survive.

      For what it's worth, these companies will continue to discount the success of Netflix and others simply because to do otherwise would likely imperil their current position. Change, will only occur when the companies are facing complete ruin, if it happens at all. Until such time that we see TW or Sony winding up their studio arms, I don't think we'll see them adapting.

    2. Re:Try focusing on keeping subscribers by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cost is the elephant in the room. Cable has gotten very expensive and the alternatives are so much cheaper. Plus far too many cable channels have dropped their interesting programming for cheap reality programming. How many historical documentaries does the History Channel show now? How much Sci-Fi can you find on SyFy? Animal planet now advertises how "human" they are. How many cooking channels do we really need? The worst part is some of the best new shows are coming out on streaming services like Netflix. The industry still has not realized that their shortsighted greed has doomed them in the long run.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Try focusing on keeping subscribers by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cost is the elephant in the room. Cable has gotten very expensive and the alternatives are so much cheaper. Plus far too many cable channels have dropped their interesting programming for cheap reality programming. How many historical documentaries does the History Channel show now? How much Sci-Fi can you find on SyFy? Animal planet now advertises how "human" they are. How many cooking channels do we really need? The worst part is some of the best new shows are coming out on streaming services like Netflix. The industry still has not realized that their shortsighted greed has doomed them in the long run.

      Well, the cost is increasing, because the Internet has actually cut into cable cash cow - paid pornography. It used to consist of basically all the revenue in the cable system - it was popular and raked it in. So naturally, cable companies are trying to recoup that revenue since well, with the Internet, who pays for porn?

      As for the reality programming - you can blame the a la carte threat for that. With cable bundling channels, you could have History and Discovery getting money in and having those speciality channels "that no one watches" concentrate on programming.

      But with a la carte being threatened and unbundling the rule, guess what? Those channels now have to compete for eyeballs. And when you're competing for eyeballs, you go with what those eyeballs wand to see - i.e., dramatic reality. It goes for all of History, Discovery, even SyFy who realized that SciFi doesn't bring in eyeballs.

      Netflix can bring in "good" programming because the programming brings in subscribers. Netflix doesn't need eyeballs. They need subscribers because subscribers mean revenue.

      So Netflix does a whole bunch of market research as to who are the people Netflix needs to attract - more attract new subscribers, and see what the general subscribers want to keep them.

      You, Netflix subscriber, are in that "Netflix audiences want to watch" category, which is why all the new Netflix programming interests you. Netflix is catering to you in order to keep you paying them money.

      If Netflix decides next year that a big group of subscribers will be angry teenagers who hate everything, well, next year's programming will concentrate on programming that interests them.

      This is not likely to change anytime soon - Netflix knows the average cable subscriber will not likely subscribe to their service, so there's no need to commission dramatic reality shows, so they won't waste money trying to attract a group of people that won't subscribe anyways.

      Also, Netflix is in the binging phase - you can bet if they know subscribers watch just the new shows then leave, they'll move to the one-episode-per-week style of programming so they can stretch a subscription across several months.

    4. Re:Try focusing on keeping subscribers by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This doesn't make any sense. Alacarte has not seriously been on the table ever, certainly not back with the explosion of reality programming. If you wanted to blame the writers strike on for this it may have made some sense, but saying that all of the channels ruined themselves because people briefly talking about something that wasn't going to happen is just crazy talk.

      Here is a thought exercise. What if every channel was like Netflix? If you thought they were making good content you would simply subscribe. Netflix has shown that you can make good original programming on a relatively modest monthly price, and they're paying for a whole lot of licenses on top of that original programming. Imagine if there was a Sci-Fi service that made only Sci-Fi series and you could subscribe. Imagine a food/cooking service. Or a history service. Or even paid 24 hour news. Would you still spend $100 a month on traditional cable with hundreds of channels stuffed full of worthless reality programming? This is what disruptive technology looks like.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  2. No kidding. by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who'd have thought that treating your customers like scumbags and cash cows might eventually cause them to leave?

    This is my surprised face.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  3. Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's okay. I've looked at my usage and I could get away with DSL speeds or even with cellular if I absolutely had to. Plus Google Fiber will probably end up in my city within the next year or two an I'm planning on getting rid of my cable provider altogether.

    Besides, if the recent FCC decision to regulate Internet providers like they regulated telephone companies to fight against the ISPs' attempts to extort fees from content providers sticks, as a common-carrier designation the cable companies might find themselves required to provide Internet access even if that's the only service the customer wants.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Re:Clearly, the solution is to show more ads! by dpidcoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who literally hasn't had a TV (in the traditional sense) in their house for 20 years, I'm always shocked at the sheer amount of advertising whenever I'm on business travel and the hotel internet isn't fast enough for netflix. Even if it's a show I'm intensely interested in, I'd much rather wait for it to come out on DVD or arrive on netflix than suffer through all the advertising. A bit at the top and bottom of each hour, sure, but ~5 minutes of commercials every ~5 minutes? How do "normal" people stand for that?

  5. Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've fallen into the trap. The real struggle should be corporate control of the country versus control by the people, but the corporations have convinced too many people that there's a left vs right fight going on, or a liberal versus conservative struggle. It is distracting you from the real enemy. If you think Disney or Comcast are "liberal" then you have drunk their lemonade. Corporations are not political, they are instead impersonal hive minds. They follow the winds of change without any loyalty to any political brand except for money. American has been deluded into thinking that if they're anti-abortion that they must always be anti-tax at the same time, and if they're pro-gay-rights that they must automatically be pro-union. It's stupid, there area million different political stances that any voter could have and yet we're being fooled into thinking that there are only two: us versus them.

    Don't hate Disney because they have different political views than your tribe has, but hate them because they're replacing "we the people" with "we the stockholders".

  6. Re:Clearly, the solution is to show more ads! by ITRambo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Typically we now see 20 minutes of ads for every 40 minutes of program. So, 1/3 of the time is commercials. Since commercials suck, It's little wonder that cable TV is shrinking its customer base. You can get the same crap, with fewer channels, over the air with the same 20 minutes of commercials per hour, and plenty of digital sub-channels showing old programs. Why not cut the cord when the cord keeps getting more expensive and the quality is not any better?

  7. Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, you haven't noticed the corrosive right in the country which despises anyone who doesn't share their opinions?

  8. Re:NCAA by ncc74656 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd much rather wait for it to come out on DVD or arrive on netflix than suffer through all the advertising.

    Does the College Football Playoff ever get to DVD or Netflix?

    Who cares? The lack of spectator sports on Netflix is a feature, not a bug.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  9. Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Besides - consumers today change over from watching TV at decided times to use Video on Demand like Netflix and YouTube.

    In many cases they can at the same time avoid the annoying ads injected into the TV programs that are on broadcast. On the web - well, there you have adblock to clean up the crap.

    We are in the middle of a media transition phase where people changes their habits to do cherry picking and only pay for what they want to see.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  10. espn is a problem by speedlaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "sports fee" of $6 per month, No sports channels...don't do sports on tv $72 per year ? SNIP

  11. Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yea, I'm SURE the Republicans want to help the liberal Comcast, Disney, and TW... yea that's the ticket.

    It has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative". It's that they're all family. They all share the last name, "Inc.".

    Seriously, what idiot thinks corporations give a crap about liberal or conservative? If anyone was paying attention to the Republican debate, Donald Trump (of all people) broke it down for them. He gives money to everyone. He explained, on national TV, that he buys politicians as a matter of course. Left, right and center they take his money and are available when he needs something. And people still think I'm extreme when I say that this country is an oligarchy.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)