The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
stratechery.com
The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#2If ESPN really is "the sole reason many people have cable", then why do only "4.8% of households" watch the network? There's something odd about this article.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#3Article is actually about unbundling, not cord-cutting. Author does not know what cord-cutting is.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#4There's something odd about those numbers - if really _all_ of those channels, including ESPN, are too expensive to be financed by just their viewers at the current cost level, and each household would pay more for just the things they want... Where exactly does the money for those channels come from?
The logical conclusion would be that large numbers of people never watch their cable TV at all and just subsidize entertainment for the rest of us. I don't think I believe that, given U.S. entertainment consumption habits.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#5"Last week, ESPN averaged 1.36 million viewers a day, which is 9.52 million for the week, or about 40.8 million for the month."
No, this is wrong. The linked article where this stat is pulled showed an average of 1.36MM viewers during prime time. That's only 3 hours of the day.
I'm not familiar enough with TV metrics to speak to this, but I don't think standard metrics that are public are going to give you the kind of data you're looking for here.
Just from anecdotal evidence, I don't see anyway that only 4.8% of cable/sat households tune in to ESPN at least once a month. I'd have a harder time finding a family I know where no one in the house watches ESPN than a family where someone in the house does.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#6"Except for one little problem: the economics of cord-cutting simply don’t make sense, for neither networks nor viewers."
I think he doth protest to much.
Cord cutting makes PERFECT SENSE for the viewer.
We haven't had Cable/Sat in our house for over 5 years. Don't miss it (or it's outrageous cost) a bit.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#7People who think they want a la carte pricing have no idea what they are talking about. This post makes he case nicely.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#8Article is actually about unbundling, not cord-cutting. Author does not know what cord-cutting is.
You are correct. You can also look at it as if I am going to unbundle, why would I need a cord? We (essentially) have a pipe from the internet to our TVs now, so just use that cord for the individual things you want. Maybe the author has that perspective, even if the terminology is incorrect.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#9The numbers here don't make sense. Most people are paying $50 per month for cable, which supports the current industry. If they all switch to paying ~$50 per month in a different model (whatever it is), an industry of the same size will be supported.
The subscription "all you can eat" model is great. The thing that needs to change from current cable is that I should be able to watch it wherever and whenever I want (and pay not to have ads). The issue right now is that the contractual relationships are so complex that no one is able to cut through the mess to put together the right offering.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#10The missing variable is the cost of providing content 24/7. In an on demand setting, I imagine total revenue may drop, but production costs would also drop.
I may be way off base though. Does anyone with more experience wish to correct me?