Viewers Only Watch 10% of Pay-TV Channels: Nielsen (usatoday.com)

Chances are if you have cable, satellite or telco-delivered TV service, you aren't watching all the channels in your package. Heck, you probably aren't even watching half of the channels you pay for. Global information and measurement company Nielsen has conducted some research and found that viewers are actually watching, on average, only about 20 of the 200 channels they pay for. What this means is that a majority of us watch less than 10% of the channels we pay our cable, satellite or other provider for. USA Today reports: Back in May 2014, viewers watched 10.6% of the 197 channels they said they paid for, Nielsen's TV Audience Report found. A year later, viewers watched 9.6% of the 208 channels they got. This year, viewers also watched 9.6% of the 206 channels on their pay-TV service. That doesn't mean customers are unhappy with their service. "There is a jump between 'I'm not watching all the channels I pay for' to 'I'm not going to pay for more channels than I watch,'" says Glenn Enoch, senior vice president of audience insights for Nielsen. "What we do know is that people who have skinny bundles are lower-income than the average, so this is more about household income than viewing behavior." Pay-TV companies need to experiment, for sure, because other consumer behaviors in the Nielsen report suggest traditional TV viewing by those under 35 continues to fall, says Colin Dixon, analyst and founder of nScreenMedia.

Comments

Cable Packages, Duh

[Strider-]

Given that they force you to buy 8 channels of dreck just to get the one channel you want, it's not surprising. One of the many reasons why I cut the cord.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Amen!

I hope at some point cable providers get screwed over and penalized for inflating not only the cost of bandwidth, but capping it as well.

Commercial free - a la carte - that's the only way to go. And I'm willing to pay for it.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Ol Olsoc]

Given that they force you to buy 8 channels of dreck just to get the one channel you want, it's not surprising. One of the many reasons why I cut the cord.

Lets see the utter pile of shit there is available:

Some 50 shows where sassy women sit around and yap and fight with each other.

Another bunch where people sing more or less the same music to win prizes.

Stupid dancing programs where professional athletes always win over some star or presidential candidates tramp daughter because they're professional athletes.

Shows where yuppies pretend to be rednecks and encourage pedophilia

Shows where superior people pop dozens of larvae out of a clown car vagina, and stand up for one of them being a pedophile.

Strange shows with really weid looking guys with weird looking hair and stuff, but with wives who are oddly attractive.

Shows where peope who never met each other sign a contract to marry each other.

Marriage saving shows for kooks

Must be a million shows about people in Alaska.

"Science" shows where humans are stupid, and apparently every advancement in history was made by aliens.

My better half watches some old reruns and court TV, so I see the ads for the weirdo shows.

Then there are the commercials Sue this person sue that medicine company, Suee everyone. If you win an annuity in your suit, there's another company that will give you a lump sum if you give tehm the annuity.

So I'm left with cartoon channel, and The Science channel, and HBO.

Otherwise, its Youtube science and space/airplane vids. I can't be the only one who watches less than 1% of their crap.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[swalve]

That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

It is Not the Cable Companies.
The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.
Or You want.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Wycliffe]

It is Not the Cable Companies.
The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.
Or You want.

I have no problem with them including a shopping channel or other junk channel with the channel I want but what I really want is to be able to pay $5 per channel for the channels I want. If they want to give me a bunch of other channels with the hope that I'll watch some commercials, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is paying $20 a month for a bunch of channels I don't want and/or having to pay $100/month to get the 4 channels that I do want. $20/month for 4 good channels should work out good for both of us but until then I will look elsewhere.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Strider-]

And hence why people are only watching 10% of the channels they're paying for.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Wycliffe]

That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.

I'm ok with $7/channel. I'm also ok with a monthly minimum of $20 or something similar. What I'm not ok with is a $40 base package with none of the channels I want and then having to pay an extra $40 per month to get the 2 channels I do want. That's not $7/channel. That's $40 per channel when I have to pay $80/month to get the 2 channels I really want. It makes even less sense when we are talking directv and dish where assuming I already have the dish, the cost of them providing me a single channel is effectively free. They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue via either people willing to pay for them or shopping channels, ad revenue, etc...

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[frovingslosh]

There is no way in hell that the cable companies are going to give you for channels that you actually want for twenty bucks a month. They already scam a lot more than that from a lot of people without giving them anything that they want at all.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[the_Bionic_lemming]

It is Not the Cable Companies.
It's not the cable companies inflating internet only prices to offset the spraying arterial blood loss of cable cutting revenue ? Yeah, no.
The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.

Fuck em.

Netflix is doing a fantastic job and I STILL pay 7.99 a month. When you don't have sharp eyesight, you can drop the video streaming quality and not really give a crap about it. Or pay 2 bucks more and get it - but ten bucks a month for a la carte and no commercials?

I'm hooked.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care? As long as you get what you want for a price you are willing to pay, what difference does it make if you also get something else?

Because we're being forced to pay for crap we don't want.

"Just pretend the crap doesn't exist and you're paying more for the few channels you want", you might argue

Problem is, by requiring that I pay for the crap channels, more of the crap will be created because the producers, by being paid, are mistakenly led to believe that their product doesn't suck. I resent that. I want the crap that nobody actually wants to pay for to wither and die so that nobody is forced to pay for it anymore.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[tsotha]

People seem to think if you get ten channels for $10/month you should be able to get the one you want for $1. But it doesn't work that way. It's more likely you'll get the one channel for $10.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[tsotha]

The shopping channels pay the cable company, at least in my area. That's why getting internet without TV costs $10 more.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Until they get educated on how to get a la carte.

The only people screwed are the ones that demand instant sports. And I feel bad for them.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[rickyslashdot]

Good Grief - guess you have to be OLD to remember THAT WAS WHAT CABLE PROMISED WHEN IT STARTED - commercial free programming - at a price. THAT lasted about as long as it took the cable companies to split the country into 'covered' areas - i.e. local monopolies. THEN along came the extra windfall profits from adding advertising BACK into the entertainment packages, and you wound up paying for multiple channels with nothing worth watching, but every channel had commercials - - - AGAIN ! But Gee Whiz - you got a HUNDRED CHANNELS - but only about 5 to 10 had anything worth watching - - - and the 'package' was designed to minimize the watchable material to just a few channels, no matter how large a package you paid for - - - just as long as you PAID for a package - that brought in more in advertising revenue than the cost for the package (your cost - not theirs).

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[PsychoSlashDot]

That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.

If that was true, I'd still like an option for "pay $7 for just ESPN without the free channels", so I could express that I don't want them, free or not.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't care, but the fact of the matter is that they do NOT offer what I want at a price I am willing to pay. That is why I no longer have cable TV.

Re:Cable Packages, Duh

[Obfuscant]

It makes even less sense when we are talking directv and dish where assuming I already have the dish, the cost of them providing me a single channel is effectively free.

The incremental cost of adding you as a viewer from a technical viewpoint is small, but not free. You need to pay your share of the infrastructure.

But the incremental cost of you viewing that channel from a content viewpoint is whatever the per-sub cost for providing that channel is. It isn't free.

They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue

I think this is called the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want cable and satellite services to offer only those channels that draw the most viewers? This is why broadcast TV has such poor content, you know. Lowest common denominator programming.

Got a better deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, I watch about 97% of what I download. Plus shows from Netflix and Amazon.

That's why I'm loving Channels as Apps

[SuperKendall]

Now that there are apps for most things like HBO or Starz, I really enjoy stations a lot more - I can pick up a station" as I wish, or drop it when I won't need it for a while.

In any one month I probably pay more than I would with a bundle but then again in some months I hardly subscribe to anything. So I'm probably still ahead and I'm no longer subsidizing channels I find utterly worthless. I'd much rather I spend a little more but all of it goes to the channel I like.

Almost cut the cord

[geek]

If it wasn't for my wife wanting to watch The Bachelor the second it comes on I would have cut the cable a long time ago. I literally watch 3 channels and most nights not even that.

I really can't stomach whats on TV these days. I know I'm older and my tastes have changed but what I see on TV these days is just uninteresting, overly political correct and frankly the actors seem to really suck. On the other hand when I see stuff from 20 years ago the same can be said, but at least then it was cheap.

Netflix is really no better either. The choices are slim, the shows are mostly junk and the prices will eventually climb to the same as cable, and/or add advertisements. It is bound to happen.

Re:Almost cut the cord

[evilviper]

If it wasn't for my wife wanting to watch The Bachelor the second it comes on I would have cut the cable a long time ago.

The Bachelor is on ABC, which is broadcast over-the-are to something like 90% of the US population. Depending on your location, getting it might cost as little as $20. I wrote an in-depth tutorial that really walks you through antenna selection and setup:

http://evilviper.pipedot.org/j...

I literally watch 3 channels and most nights not even that. I really can't stomach whats on TV these days

I've always been that way... That's why my favorite slogan is:

"PBS: Television for people who hate television"

You'll do better with an antenna, anyhow. Lots of sub-channels with old TV shows and movies, several of which don't even get carried on most cable systems.

Re:Almost cut the cord

[AntronArgaiv]

Same here. She absolutely couldn't live without "House Hunters" and CNN.

Then I cut the cable. Told her to get Apple TV, Hulu and Netflix. Total of $30/mo, which
is half what we were paying Comcast for cable TV.

Somehow, we have survived. I rigged up an antenna in the attic, so she can get the local news she
insisted she had to have. I don't think she's watched it since I did it.

We did watch the first "debate". // Trump? Really? // If the FBI won't indict Hillary, she's guilty of nothing.

If you can't cut the cord

[rmdingler]

Nobody, ever, gets offered the best deal a cable provider has by remaining a constant customer.

As long as you have a competitive market, trade out as soon as introductory specials fade into the sunset, for newer, sweeter deals with the competition.

On the Web

[dcollins]

Meanwhile, I only tend to visit about 20 of the 1 billion sites on the World Wide Web (about 0.000002%), and yet here I am paying full price for my Internet access.

Re:On the Web

[amicusNYCL]

If you tried to sell internet "a-la-carte", the geeks would have you burned at the stake.

Yeah, and rightly so, because the internet is a huge network with virtually no barrier to entry, and anyone can publish content and anyone can consume whatever content is out there.

but don't try and sell TV as all or nothing, then you're screwing them over. Dumb fucks.

You want to use the internet model for TV? Great. One service with every possible channel available, no mandatory equipment rental fees, and then let provider companies compete on how many minutes you can watch per day or whatever for whatever price. If you want to make an analogy between the internet and TV, that's the analogy to make. Don't try to shove the internet into the TV box, that doesn't work. The reason why we love the internet model is specifically because it is better than the TV model. Don't try to make the internet like TV, try to make the old-fashioned TV model like the internet. It's going to go that way eventually once older people die and younger people are raised without ever spending childhoods sitting for hours in front of the TV every night. Instead they'll have spent hours on the internet every day. If you want those people as customers then it's time to throw out the old models and figure out what people actually want.

I'll be happy to pay money to consume TV shows the way that I want to consume them. In the meantime, I get them without paying the broadcast companies and I don't feel bad at all for the broadcast companies. They haven't earned my sympathy because they insist that I do things their way, they don't understand what I want. Until they figure that out, I'm not worried about them getting my money because I know that creative people will continue to make shows I want to watch. I would sooner buy some merchandise that goes directly to the creators than give money to a broadcaster trying to tell me how to watch everything.

Re:Can't watch TV, it's all pro Hillary

[Berkyjay]

Trump, is that you?

Re: Can't watch TV, it's all pro Hillary

[orlanz]

Right, wonder what your back in the days were... Decades of gangs, prohibition, mafia, corrupt jails, corrupt police departments, insider trading, corporate fraud, war on drugs, welfare fraud, Medicare fraud, Ponzie schemes, housing bubble, stock bubble, too big to fail, etc.

Most of the criminals involved there weren't even touched. Some were even bailed out by taxpayer funds. Or did you mean before 50 years ago... When entire sections of our society were treated less equally?

Re:Amazing insight, Nielsen

[AK Marc]

This has been a complaint since the '80s. Sports fans had to buy "expanded" cable to get channels they didn't want, just so they could get ESPN. Disney Kids only comes with premium, so you have to buy the most expensive package with 200 channels to get that one. And you can't buy HBO with "basic" as well, so those wanting to watch The Sopranos or True Blood or whatever, couldn't get HBO without expanded basic or premium (depending on the company).

A La Carte channel ordering would not cut revenue, but would break the monopolies by the distribution companies.

Not surprising

[orlanz]

I have two cable boxes... Haven't been turned on since they were installed 3 years ago. I had to bundle them with my internet to get the best deal from the provider. And they stop calling you as often to "save me money with the bundle of the month". Now I just get the useless VoIP calls once every 6 months.

I don't have the time nor inclination to plan my weekly schedule around the times of the shows. I haven't really watched traditional TV in close to 15 years! 10 years ago I even lost the need to have something random in the background.

I still watch shows about 3-4 hours a week. But on my schedule. I think Hulu was a great detox program. Initially they provided the latest and greatest. Then they went to 1 day delay. Then 8 days. Then 30! A few months after that, I didn't mind watching shows an entire season later or even dropping them.

Season clif hangers were no more so wasn't addicted to looking at release schedules. The whole water cooler talk had long since died so there was rarely a need to stay up to date on whatever was on.

Now Hulu became paid only... in between seasons!! So awesome! Haven't even been to the site in months. I am probably bringing the average down, but I think Nielsen is being conservative in their numbers. It probably way worse based on how many just have the TV on and how many only got it due to bundles.

Let's be honest

[TheRealMindChild]

No different than playing 30 of your 300 steam games