[opendtv] Cord cutting and cord shaving

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 02:15:27 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> The statement is incorrect to begin with - cord cutting is NOT
> accelerating.

So, I took it upon myself to see whether there was any basis to that statement.
And interestingly enough, the picture that is emerging now, and by that I mean
last month and this month, not last year or prior, is that "cable shaving" is
every bit as much of a threat to "the bundle," as cable cutting is. Or more so,
if you look at the numbers. This is because cable shaving is where subscribers
opt out of any extended or even slightly extended bundle, and end up with
little more than the OTA channels.

So for example, cable shaving includes dropping ESPN, which seems to be Craig's
only consideration in any of this. Never mind the CNNs, TNTs, Nickelodians,
HBOs, and all the rest, also channels that until now have been strictly walled
up in the MVPD model.

As I said, many articles describe this phenomenon. Here's one example:

------------------------------------------
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/fool/article/Is-Cord-Shaving-More-Destructive-to-Comcast-and-5826774.php

Is Cord Shaving More Destructive to Comcast and Time Warner Than Cord Cutting?

Jamal Carnette, The Motley Fool : October 16, 2014

Disney's ESPN is both the most expensive channel and the channel with the
largest subscriber decline. Those two things are related. Source: ESPN

The most-discussed trend in pay TV has been no-pay TV. The number of those
abandoning pay TV -- those dubbed "cable cutters" -- has recently jumped from
4.5% of U.S. households in 2010 to 6.5% today according to an Experian
Marketing survey. However, a more insidious trend is also afoot: cable shavers.
This term denotes those who keep pay TV, but have traded down in terms of
packages and now have fewer channels.

Not only that, but the trend among cable shavers is just as pronounced: a
recent Nielsen survey reported in the The Wall Street Journal finds the top 40
most widely distributed channels in 2010 have lost an average of 3.2 million
subscribers, or 3% of their distribution. And while it is important to note
that this figure includes cable cutters, it doesn't fully account for the
entire loss of distribution.

According to the article, a growing number of customers are opting for cheaper,
sports-free packages without popular and widely bundled channels like Disney's
ESPN or Time Warner's TNT, USA, Fox News, and CNN. Should investors in these
channels and legacy cable providers Time Warner Cable and Comcast view this as
a risk to their businesses?

ESPN and TNT are expensive for a reason

Leading the pack among channels with the largest subscribers drops are ESPN and
TNT. And that makes sense: on a monthly basis these are the most expensive
channels, according to media insight firm SNL Kagan. According to the firm,
ESPN costs $6.04/month per subscriber and TNT costs $1.44/month per subscriber.
And there's a reason for this: sports-related programming.

For perspective, ESPN and TNT recently signed a deal with the NBA to continue
their long-standing partnership to broadcast NBA games. The new deal is
shocking in its total price tag; kicking in during the 2016-17 season and
running for nine years, it will cost these two channels $24 billion in total,
or $2.67 billion per year. Right now, the deal costs the channels $930 million.
So for the rights to continue broadcasting the NBA, ESPN and TNT paid more than
three times what they currently pay.

The channels then monetize that content in two ways: ad-based revenue and
affiliate fees. Ad-based revenue is paid by third-party advertisers that pay
for valuable commercial time. However, nearly 50% of the revenue from those two
channels' respective operating divisions come from affiliate fees -- portions
of your cable bill passed on by the pay TV providers.

Pay-TV providers are stuck between a rock and a hard place

This puts pay TV providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast in a difficult
position. In the past these companies have been able to pass these increased
programming costs, plus the channels' profit margins, plus their own profit
margins on to the consumer by adding more channels or bundling "near-loss
leader" services (think: wireline phone), or just muscling them through -- an
option they had due to the absence of real competition.

However, those days are now in the past. Led in part by streaming-based
services like Netflix, Hulu, and the Roku streaming box, many consumers are
consuming content differently than before. The pay TV market appears to have
gotten the memo and is now going through a furious, mature-industry type
merger-fest, with AT&T seeking to acquire DirecTV and Comcast attempting to
acquire Time Warner Cable (FCC and DOJ pending).

Perhaps these large mergers will allow the combined companies to better
negotiate with channels and force content partners to accept lower affiliate
fees, but due to geographical near-monopolies pre-merger and the cord-cutting
and slimming trends I don't think this will be enough to change the
cost/benefit relationship that exists between subscribers and pay-TV providers.

Final thoughts

The media has done a lot of reporting on cord cutters, but appears to have
missed out on this bigger trend. Pay TV providers need to face the fact that
their business model is becoming increasingly unsustainable. Last year, pay-TV
lost 166,000 subscribers according to Moffett Nathanson -- its first annual
decline ever. And now we've found that many of those who haven't cut the cord
entirely have slimmed down their costs by eschewing large packages. Eventually
consumers will force cable companies to change. It's a good idea to get in
front of this trend before being forced to do so.

The article Is Cord Shaving More Destructive to Comcast and Time Warner Than
Cord Cutting? originally appeared on Fool.com.

Jamal Carnette has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool
recommends Netflix and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool owns shares of Netflix and
Walt Disney. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We
Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a
diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a
disclosure policy.

This other article,

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/wsj-consumers-not-cutting-cord-theyre-shaving-it/2014-10-10

has a graphic that shows decline in household numbers from 2010, for several
cable channels. The two biggest drops, at or above 4.5 percent, are ESPN and
TNT, respectively. This is the article that explains tha the cheaper bundles
these cable shavers subscribe to do NOT include the likes of ESPN and TNT. It
also explains that now 12 percent of subscriptions are for bundles that include
little more than the OTA channels, and the number of these super-slimmed down
packages has been growing in recent years.

So, is this trend "accelerating"? Technically, I don't have the data to say for
sure, but it seems clear that the trend is ongoing. It seems obvious to me why
the various bosses are taking action, but the point of this post was just to
get to the facts concerning the trends in MVPD subscriptions.

Bert

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: Cord cutting and cord shaving
  - From: Craig Birkmaier

[opendtv] Cord cutting and cord shaving

Other related posts: