Aereo.com just launched in Boston last week. I was excited thinking, _this_ is how I can cut the cord and still watch sports. Then I realized how little sports is on broadcast anymore. Try watching hockey playoffs.
The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
21–30 of 62 posts
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#22There'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 ent…
It works the same way roads and bridges work; collective payment.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#23The 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?
When you look at the costs of television, the marginal costs to keep on transmitting a bundle of channels to everyone in the neighborhood is a rounding error.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#24"The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone." No, it isn't. I cut the cord, and watch media on Netflix & Hulu and buy 2-3 shows on iTunes. To get the same number of movies and series on TV I was paying for a $100+ per month cable bill. Now I'm paying $40 for internet and $8 for Netflix and about $6 per month from iTunes TV shows. So I get a better experience, can watch what I want when I wan…
I get cable AND Internet for $55/month (including espn and amc). People who claim cable is expensive seem to be unwilling to lessen their bill.
[deleted]
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#25If 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.
Only 4.8% watch in any given week. More watch at some point over the course of the year (perhaps when different sports are in season), and most people who exhibit that behavior probably can't be bothered to unsubscribe for the part of the year when the events they want to watch aren't on.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#26Article is actually about unbundling, not cord-cutting. Author does not know what cord-cutting is.
You're right. Added this footnote (http://stratechery.com/2013/the-cord-cutting-fantasy/#footno...):
Update: It’s been pointed out, correctly, that I’m talking about unbundling, not cord-cutting. That’s technically correct. However, I think folks who talk about cord-cutting still want the same content. That’s the fantasy I’m referring too. Still, I regret the imprecision ↩
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#27"The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone." No, it isn't. I cut the cord, and watch media on Netflix & Hulu and buy 2-3 shows on iTunes. To get the same number of movies and series on TV I was paying for a $100+ per month cable bill. Now I'm paying $40 for internet and $8 for Netflix and about $6 per month from iTunes TV shows. So I get a better experience, can watch what I want when I wan…
At this point, though, there are too few people doing what you're doing to influence content creator behavior. Cable companies are probably making less per unit of content off of you than they are off of cable subscribers, but that's okay: the costs of making the content are essentially fixed, and are paid for mostly by cable subscribers. If they have to choose between getting dollars from you for content they've alr…
Netflix's move into creating content is specifically in response to cord cutters desires. Since they can't convince HBO to give them their content, they've decided to compete directly with HBO. Cord cutters are actually creating new content creators.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#28"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.
Like I said in a different response, cord cutting makes perfect sense for viewers as long as it's only a few viewers. The production of the content the cord cutters are watching is being subsidized by people who haven't cut the cord yet. That content might not be created in the first place if everyone went the cord-cutting route.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#29The 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 (a…
That assumes consumer behavior remains the same. But we know that people consume much more with all you can eat than with al la carte. And since the marginal cost to deliver incremental households is near zero, a la carte makes even less sense.
Re: The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
#30"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 o…
My family, my wife's 4 sisters' families, her mom, my mom = zero ESPN viewing. Moving on to friends...
i wonder if # OF TVS * EVERY SPORTS BAR is what leads to the ESPN viewing numbers being so high. I really dislike sports and it's irritating that I'm forced to subsidize it.