[opendtv] Re: Differing interpretations of the same data

From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 18:58:29 -0500
Craig wrote:

 

>> Cable systems also offer HBO as VOD (for a price) 
>> these days, so the VOD aspect is *NOT* exclusive to Netflix!! The phenomenon 
>> is instead largely caused by cord cutting and cord SHAVING, people who find 
>> this low cost and adequate alternative. Example: my own son-in-law.
>

> Not true.

Craig. why not save time and check your facts first?

http://www.twcondemand.com/tv/hbo/hbo-series

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/HBO-On-Demand/7942319684355782112/full-episodes

FiOS has the same thing.

> The bundle is causing their revenues 
> to INCREASE. The small number of people cutting and shaving is not of 
> concern, 
> because they are getting more from those who pay for the bundle.

And that does not strike you as absurd, in the not-so-long term?

The fact is, you seem to be fixated on the success of "the bundle," but this 
"the bundle" only really matters to the MVPDs (middlemen who make a lot from it 
with minimal administrative costs) and to the channels that survive on 
subsistence (essentially parasitic load to the high value channels). The owners 
of high value content in that bundle could most likely be making more for 
themselves, now that the Internet is available to them. And they can see this, 
as subscribers to "the bundle" diminish.

> The decline is still inconsequential. Let me know when it declines below 80%

It already is below 80 percent, for this "the bundle," Craig. You haven't been 
reading the numbers.

Subscriptions to MVPDs are now on the order of 81 percent of households. *But*, 
cord shavers are up from (says the WSJ) 8 to 10 percent a few years ago, to 12 
percent in October of 2014. Once again, here is the article and the important 
excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------

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


(Editor's note: The "shaving" trend isn't exactly brand new--we identified it 
as a possible emerging behavior while toiling away in unappreciated obscurity 
at GigaOm back in 2012.)

A growing number of pay-TV subscribers, WSJ reports, are signing up for 
smaller, cheaper bundles of channels that cost in the range of $10 to $50 and 
don't include the priciest networks like ESPN and TNT, which have seen their 
distribution footprints drop 4 percent or more over the last four years.

"What we are seeing is some cord cutting and some cord shaving," said Stephen 
Hasker, global president of Nielsen, to WSJ. "Consumer time and attention is 
shifting."

Basic programming packages that include little more than broadcast channels now 
make up about 12 percent of pay-TV subscriptions in the U.S., up from 8 percent 
to 10 percent just a few years ago, the paper adds, after gathering the 
estimates of various industry executives. ...

-----------------------------------------------

So, this means that cord shaving has taken "the bundle" subscribers already 
well below 80 percent of households, Craig. So again, apart from yourself, who 
really cares about "the bundle"? The owners of the high value content, who are 
being dragged down by the unrelated other high cost channels? I don't think so.

And this is another example of how you argue both sides of an argument. Not 
long ago, you were dead set against bundling. Now, you can't seem to get enough 
of it. I told you back in the days when you were opposed, bundling (a) 
subsidizes struggling channels, and (b) is the cheapest way for MVPDs to make 
gobs of channels available to customers. When walled gardens were the only game 
in town, bundling made sense for everyone except the consumers. Now that a 
neutral Internet can carry TV, "the bundle" makes sense mostly for those trying 
to extend the walled garden model, and for the channels that survive only on 
subsistence.

Bert


Bert
Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: Differing interpretations of the same data
  - From: Craig Birkmaier
[opendtv] Re: Differing interpretations of the same data

Other related posts:
