Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable TV Companies Could Lose Nearly $1 Billion in the Next Year From People Ditching Their Subscriptions (businessinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on from the changing-habits dept.

Nathan McAlone, writing for BusinessInsider: Cable TV companies could lose nearly $1 billion to people cutting the cord over the next year, according to a new study by management consulting firm cg42. The firm estimates that 800,000 cable customers will ditch their subscriptions in the next 12 months. Cg42 expects each customer to be an average loss of $1,248 annually, and losses to approach $1 billion over the year. Cg42 also found that the average cord-cutter saves $104 per month by canceling. Some in the industry have argued that cutting the cord doesn't actually save you money if you subscribe to a bunch of streaming services like Netflix, HBO, and so on. But that point of view neglects the reality that many cable subscribers pay for those streaming services already.

13 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Saving Money by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu than I was when I had cable. I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

    Streaming is fragmenting though. Yahoo is stealing some shows from Hulu. CBS is going solo. BBC is launching their own separate channel. Soon it will be more expensive to cut the cord because streaming is fragmenting so badly.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  2. "Lose?" by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much. No company is entitled to continued steady profits.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:"Lose?" by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much. No company is entitled to continued steady profits.

      That's communist talk there, mister. We paid good money to your elected officials to see to it that our profits continue. How dare you suggest that we are not then entitled to the representation that we paid for, fair and square.

      Regards,

      Your Friends at Comcast

    2. Re:"Lose?" by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.

      This. The fine article is using the same kind of "lose" where a tax cut that leaves money in the pockets of the workers becomes a loss to the government. Or a 10% hike in funding for an agency or program when they asked for 20% is a "10% cut". It's starting with the assumption that the money belongs to the government or agency being funded (or the cable company) and if they don't get it for any reason it becomes a loss.

      It becomes obvious when you look at the "loss" number ($1248/yr) and the "also found" (amazing discovery!) $104/month that the cord cutters save. Funny that -- a $104/month loss to the cable company is exactly what the customer was paying. I wonder if this "cg42" outfit realizes it is implying that cable companies are non-profits were these numbers true? (I.e., if my paying you $104 per month offsets your $104 per month loss, then you are making no profit!)

  3. The content producers did it to themselves. by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe if they stopped putting huge ads with flashing animations and sound overtop of the content, it would actually be worth watching some of their content.

    At least that's why I cancelled my cable subscription.

  4. More channel choice is needed by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    More channel choice is needed.

    Why can't ESPN be it's own $8-12 /mo package?

    Local RSN's $2-$10 /mo

    and so on?

  5. Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? by drpimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your assumption is many have switched to a new corporate overload but most may have just cut their bill substantially by dropping the TV out of their package. The real question is ... when are they just going to up the price of internet and include it all for that same bloated price and we are back to square one.

    --
    -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
  6. Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yip, Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.

    I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

    Either way, a bit of coax connected to your house is far more valuable than the twisted pair, or even fiber - DOCSIS 3.1 = 1gbps, that pretty much just smoked anyone's business model to deploy fibre to the home. Since they own the cable that seemingly has endless bandwidth potential, it doesnt matter what is going over it, so long as there is a subscriber on the end end of it coughing up $50+ a month for it.

  7. They could easily fix it but they dont want to by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they let people only pay for the channels they want rather than force them to buy a whole package of useless crap, far fewer people would be cutting the cable.
    The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want, so the market is rightfully killing them off.
    At some point they will finally be forced to deal with their own egos just to survive, but by then it will already be way too late for them, because most of their market share will have already moved to other sources such as Netflix, Amazon etc. that already do a much better job of meeting individual needs affordably.

    1. Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want...

      Actually the production companies like Disney (ESPN, ABC, etc) usually require them to carry the other channels. So if you don't want sports too bad, you're getting ESPN. Cable and satellite companies don't have much leverage here. They can refuse to carry it, or package it differently, and then get their rebroadcast rights pulled. I expect this will happen to streaming as well. It's a lot like beer - the major brewers require stores to stock all their varieties of the same beer, pushing out the microbrews as much as possible. You don't get to carry one and not the other 10 that taste exactly the same.

  8. Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very misleading. They say, "$20 a month". Then you get your bill and it's $60 because of HD fees, cable box fees, taxes, other unknown fees, etc. And then when your 1-year promo is over it jumps to $100 a month.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  9. Same AC, added point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I forgot to mention the pricelessness that is realizing your kids have absolutely no idea what a "commercial" is. I am proud when they are utterly confused (then totally frustrated by) commercials when forced to endure them. That could, even more so, be the nail in Cable TV's coffin during the next generation.

    It could also backfire and kids take commercials seriously due to being naive, leading to an even poorer next generation...

  10. Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ... by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We didn't let the companies create the artificial monopolies, our government created them.