Slashdot Mirror


Subscribers Pay 61 Cents Per Hour of Cable, But Only 20 Cents Per Hour of Netflix (allflicks.net)

An anonymous reader writes from a math-heavy report via AllFlicks: The folks at AllFlicks decided to crunch some numbers to determine just how much more expensive cable is than Netflix. They answered the question: how much does Netflix cost per hour of content viewed, and how does that compare with cable's figures? AllFlicks reports: "We know from Netflix's own numbers that Netflix's more than 75 million users stream 125 million hours of content every day. So that's (roughly) 100 minutes per user, per day. Using the price of Netflix's most popular plan ($9.99) and a 30-day month, we can say that the average user is paying about 0.33 cents per minute of content, or 20 cents an hour. Not bad! But what about cable? Well, Nielsen tells us that the average American adult cable subscriber watches 2,260 minutes of TV per week (including timeshifted TV). That's equivalent to 5.38 hours per day, or 161.43 hours per 30-day month. Thanks to Leichtman Research, we know that the average American pays $99.10 per month for cable TV. That means that subscribers are paying a whopping 61.4 cents per hour to watch cable TV -- more than three times as much as users pay per hour of Netflix!"

28 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Cable content is worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most Netflix content has been off the air for years. It's cheaper content. Other than their original shows, which is admittedly increasingly growing in size and value, generally cable offers more valuable access than Netflix does.

  2. uhm, no.... by PublicSchill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Netflix costs $3 per person for 4 people to view it, but that includes 5 profiles. So realistically it's rare all 5 people want to watch at the same time. So it's quite easy to pay less than that. Cable is usually at least $30 to $40 per month for a household. That's 10x as expensive for the cheapest plans available. Not to mention Netflix doesn't have commercials... You can't compare the average hours per user for cable and netflix. They aren't equal... At best you can compare the cost per person. The number of hours is highly variable, and not to mention it doesn't change the monthly cost anyways...

  3. Netflix v. Cable? How about Netflix v. HBO by speedplane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:Netflix v. Cable? How about Netflix v. HBO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's another shill piece for Netflix after the market hit them for not gaining enough new customers. Like all PR pieces about this company, they exclude the additional requirement costs; such as decent broadband, and devices to view the streamed media. Compared to a basic STB + TV, you need a bit of gear to start with for streaming services, whether it be smart TVs, consoles or plug-in devices that run the Netflix client, net connection and wifi etc.

      Cutting the cable TV from a package will only increase the broadband connection costs, which in most cases will almost double the bundled price.

      For accounting numbers, these shill pieces are exceptionally poor. They must assume their readers are morons. Therefore, they should not be getting any coverage in any remotely intelligent / tech-news aggregate forum.

    2. Re:Netflix v. Cable? How about Netflix v. HBO by houghi · · Score: 2

      The fact that it lacks news or sports is not something I would mind. I do not have cable anymore, so I won't pay for any of it. I live in Europe and what I would get would basically be:
      Programs in 7 or more languages. Sounds nice, but is basically all the same in different languages.

      What I see when I turn on a tv at my parents in Spain, my sister in Germany or with friends anywhere else is:
      NCIS in some form. No idea if they are re-runs or just another spin-off. Some people singing and other judging them. No idea if these are reruns or just another spin-of.
      The news. No idea if these are ... OK with that I know they are re-runs.

      Once at night on German TV they had news from 30 years ago. Amazing how nothing has really changed. The names have, but it was basically identical to what is going on now.

      From that moment on, I decided not to watch news anymore. Just not worth my time.

      And no, no Netflix. Now KickAssTorrent is gone, I might not even follow most shows anymore. I have not even looked for a replacement. I might even be tempted to get out of my moms cellar.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. ..doesnt factor in connection cost. by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This also doesnt factor in connection cost. Thats 20 cents per hour for people that somehow have internet costs counted on a different ledger.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by redmid17 · · Score: 3

      True but how many people do? I know it's more common in non-US countries. I commonly see people gripe about Rogers in Canada, for example.

      However, for me, my cable is nearly always bundled with internet in a fashion that makes it nearly or as expensive to just have cable. I've juggled RCN, Comcast, and a few other providers over the years. Now, with RCN, even with my subsidized deal where I essentially pay taxes (thanks HOA!) and my phone for my TV package, I still probably get 3 or 4 to 1 cent in the Netflix:Cable debate. Hell the biggest reason I have cable at all is for sports. I watch far too many for my own good, but just getting the internet would boost my sports outlay considerably between the MLB/NBA/NFL packages, ESPN GO, or the bar tab I'd rack up watching my favorite out of market teams.

    2. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It also does not count for the time you are spending watching ads.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it ALSO doesn't account for when people watch netflix, they're WATCHING NETFLIX -- actively logging-in, selecting a program, and starting its playback, and then sitting down to watch it.. netflix also is in a position to have very detailed statistics on viewing habits..

      neither of these is true for 'regular' television...

    4. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      However, for me, my cable is nearly always bundled with internet in a fashion that makes it nearly or as expensive to just have cable.

      I have the exact opposite experience: I buy internet, and Comcast throws in cable for something between zero and negative $10/month. If the only thing I used my internet for was netflix, it would add $1/hour. If I use my internet like Nielsen claims people watch TV, it costs $0.35/hour.

      Hell the biggest reason I have cable at all is for sports.

      I suspect that sports explains the majority of the cable-netflix differences, both in the number of hours watched and the premium paid for those hours. Sport have an inherent immediacy: they're very valuable in real time, but hardly worth anything even an hour or two late. Movies, TV series...as long as you watch them within a day or two of your friends, it doesn't really matter.

    5. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      it ALSO doesn't account for when people watch netflix, they're WATCHING NETFLIX -- actively logging-in, selecting a program, and starting its playback, and then sitting down to watch it.. netflix also is in a position to have very detailed statistics on viewing habits..

      neither of these is true for 'regular' television...

      A lot of people, my wife included, have the tv on whilst doing household chores, and aren't really watching. But i doubt many do that with NF.

    6. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have Netflix on while on /.. Which probably explains the low quality of most of my posts.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    7. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      It also does not count for the time you are spending watching ads.

      And the 'appointment viewing' of cable, where you literally have to set aside a specific time to sit and watch the shows you want to watch.

      This adds an opportunity cost to your use of cable which effectively pushes up its cost even more because you can't watch those shows at times, or indeed places, that suit you rather than suiting the cable company.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by Maxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OP's point was that Neilson can tell when your TV is on, but they can't tell if you are actually watching it. The morning news on mute with no one in the room counts as 'watched'. With netflix, generally, you have to explicitly turn it on and pick a show so you are more likely to be actually watching the content. That might explain the huge averages - the average american watches 5.4 hours of TV every. single. day? more likely they have TV on somewhere, but not necessarily watching it

    9. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      It also does not count for the time you are spending watching ads.

      That's true. The vast majority of people don't really want to pay for commercials. Cable TV has now on average gone above the 25% mark for amount of ads per unit time (more than 15 minutes per hour), which would increase the effective "cost" of cable programming by 33% to around 82 cents/hour.

      For some cable channels, the percentage of ads has grown to over 1/3 of all programming time, making the cost of cable programming 50% more than the 61 cents quoted (around 93 cents/hour).

      These are pretty significant differences when you're comparing to Netflix. And if you're paying nearly $1/hour for content on some cable channels (not counting commercials), you quickly begin to realize that cable may not be a good deal at all. For example, there are thousands and thousands of movie titles you could rent instantly on Amazon for $2.99 or so. For a 2-hour+ movie, you're basically not paying much more than you might be for your cable content... except a streaming movie from Amazon (or wherever) is ad-free and delivered to you exactly when you want it.

      Also keep in mind the assumptions here, which was that the average cable subscriber watches over 5 hours of TV per day. I don't have cable TV, but even if I did, there's no way I'd ever watch that much TV. I have better things to do with my life (like waste time making comments on Slashdot?). If you only watch an hour or two of TV per day, the cost of cable is significantly higher and you'd probably get a better deal by cancelling cable and paying for streaming content (or physical media, if you prefer) as needed.

      That is, of course, unless you NEED to watch whatever new episode of whatever IMMEDIATELY when it comes out and that content is only on cable. But I think people need to ask themselves how much they're actually paying in a premium to get that one or two hours of new content per week.

    10. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. Once you adjust for the amount of content per hour of TV time (see math below), the cost for cable content is actually closer to $0.88/hr, rather than the $0.61/hr stated in the summary.

      For the sake of fairness, if we take into account the average price Americans pay for an Internet connection, the cost for Netflix content ends up being about $1.22/hr. (math below). Of course, that number is kinda useless, since it fails to take into account the fact that most people in the developed world will be purchasing an Internet connection regardless of their interest in Netflix, as well as the fact that their Internet connection provides them with an essentially infinite stream of content from free sources other than Netflix (e.g. YouTube, Hulu, etc.) at no additional cost. But for a hypothetical person who has an Internet connection for the sole purpose of watching Netflix and uses that connection for no other use, I suppose that the number above would indeed be what they pay per hour of content (assuming their viewing habits matched the average American's).

      If anyone has more up-to-date numbers, corrections for my math, or ideas for how to improve on these calculations, I'd love to see them, since I'm actually really curious about this stuff.

      Math for cable's cost per hour of content:
      A typical hour-long American show has 42 minutes of actual content and 18 minutes of ads. As such, while the average American may have the TV tuned to a cable channel for 5.38 hours each day, they're only receiving about 3.766 hours of actual content each day, or 112.98 hours per 30-day month. When the average cable cost of $99.10/mo. is taken into account, that yields about $0.88/hr for cable content.

      Math for Netflix's cost per hour of content with Internet connection included:
      The most recent numbers I could find for the average price of Internet connectivity in America are from 2014, and that survey pegged the number at $51/mo. (which, I'll point out, would provide far more bandwidth than would be strictly necessary to get Netflix, but it's the average price, so I'm going with it). With the $9.99/mo. cost of Netflix factored in, that comes out to a total of $60.99/mo.. Factoring in the 100 min/day of viewing that the summary mentions (i.e. 50 hr/mo.), Netflix ends up costing $1.22/hr of content.

    11. Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I don't think you know enough seniors.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. Also... by Kindaian · · Score: 2

    For netflix you need a proper internet connection.

    For cable, you don't (technically).

    1. Re:Also... by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 2

      And how much should internet service cost? I was paying $80 per month for 40 Mbps down but only ever getting 20 and often getting about 2. As it turned out, they were willing to lower my bill to about $35 per month and no doubt they're still making a profit. So where was that extra $45 going?

      And of course, they still aren't providing more than 20Mbps down.

      the only words any ISP I've ever had seem to understand are "I want to cancel my service." That's the only time they pay attention to anything.

    2. Re:Also... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      "So where was that extra $45 going?" hookers and cocaine, of course!

  6. 5.38 hours per day by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    5.38 hours per day

    I doubt this figure; this is an absurd amount of TV to watch on a daily basis on average.
    If you have a job, this figure pretty much means you spend all your free time on TV.
    Is this just number the cumulative amount of hours of all TV's in an average family household turned on, or is this actually time spent watching TV by an average individual?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:5.38 hours per day by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Generally speaking, the industry that measures it considers you to be watching if you're in the same room. And I agree.

    2. Re:5.38 hours per day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2016-reports/total-audience-report-q1-2016.pdf

      This report claims 4:31 live TV and 0:33 time-shifted TV (DVR) on average.

    3. Re:5.38 hours per day by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I doubt this figure; this is an absurd amount of TV to watch on a daily basis on average.

      Well cable subscribers trend older, right?

      When I grew up in the 70s, the TV was always on, all evening. Now my wife and I don't do that; but I've noticed both my mom and my wife's folks still have the TV on pretty much from dinner time until bed time. And even with some of my friends (in their 40s and 50s), the TV is on a LOT. It actually is rather annoying.

      Now they aren't camped out on the couch in front of it all that time... but it is playing and has a modicum of their focus.

      And from what I've seen of college kids now, while they're not watching television per se - they do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time watching stuff like YouTube and swapping SnapChat videos (they don't seem to actually chat much on SnapChat, which seems weird but them I'm old). It wouldn't surprise me if the total amount of time they spend on new media rivals what their parents and grandparents spend in front of the boob tube.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:5.38 hours per day by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      Isn't it even simpler: hours the TV is on?

  7. Rant about cable by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much does Netflix cost again? $10 per month? It's so insignificant that I'm not even sure. I look over my credit card bill every month making sure all the charges look legit and I don't even usually notice Netflix.

    It might not work for all customers, but I would still pay for Netflix if it was $25 a month. I would complain at that price, but I wouldn't cancel my service.

    cable TV? Screw that. People complain about the paucity of things to watch on Netflix, but have you looked at your cable TV lineup? That's even worse and I used to pay close to $150 per month for that

  8. Completely bogus by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    So many thing wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. Looks to me that it was more of an ego trip on the part of the author than a valid study.

    First of all, cable is obviously a screw job. There is no way that I can pretend that cable has any merits. But still ...

    NetFlix content is generally older than cable content. While Netflix is creating some new shows, it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.

    People who are watching NetFlix have to be paying for Internet too. And many pay for a faster speed than they otherwise would to watch NetFlix. So Internet prices should be considered. Once that is done, since NetFlix is watched less, it might even end up costing more per hour, but "per hour" is just stupid.

    Computing the cost per hour is pointless. Both are unmetered. People turn cable on even though they might not be paying attention to it, it becomes just something that's there and might occasionally be interesting. The same isn't quite as true for NetFlix since you have to actively select what you want to see. But realistically NetFlix is likely watched less simply because there is less to watch. If NetFlix had live shows such as news feeds then it might get watched more in a month making its meaningless "hourly cost" less, but it does not.

    All that you can really say is that cable is more expensive than NetFlix, as long as you are not getting screwed too bad on Internet access.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  9. Profit maximization by sjbe · · Score: 2

    And how much should internet service cost? I was paying $80 per month for 40 Mbps down but only ever getting 20 and often getting about 2. As it turned out, they were willing to lower my bill to about $35 per month and no doubt they're still making a profit. So where was that extra $45 going?

    That my friend is about the closest thing to pure profit in the known universe. It costs them essentially the same amount to provide you 1Mbps access as it does 100Mbps access once the equipment is installed. Like text messaging for phone companies they are charging for something that otherwise would be an underutilized asset. Worse, in a lot of places there is just one option for customers so they have little incentive to compete on price or improve service. Where I live my options are Comcast or MUCH slower service from Frontier Communications or to cut the cord and go LTE though my cell phone. Kind of a Hobson's choice really.

    It's kind of like seats on an airplane. People have different willingness to pay for what in reality are very minor differences and so they charge different amounts to maximize profit.