Satellite (and cable) death spiral

[DoyleG]

Nielsen's Total Audience Report from last year.
18-34 2:17
35-49 4:08
50-64 6:11
65+ 7:24

Nielsen of course tracks only actual television, not something like YouTube. I do think you're right that overall screen time is balanced out in a variety of ways. The key, of course, is that YT and various other media have a completely different viewing and revenue dynamic than television.

Ratings only measure what is being watched, not if people are sitting down and watching it.

Older people will leave the TV on during the day on specific channels as a bit of background noise. You see this in doctor's offices, dentists, and in workplaces that have public TV sets running.

Ratings systems still haven't developed an effective system to correctly calculate DVR usage as well.

 

[Sam Spade]

Cutting the cable and increasing the speed to 75mbps would be about $70 a month. I'm considering going with Hulu Live so I can watch Flyers games (Hulu does carry both NBCSN Philly and NBCSN Philly+) and most of the other channels I currently watch which is $45 a month so my overall savings will be roughly $85. For the people who have done something similar, am I missing anything here? I can't help but think it's too good to be true. Is the 75mbps going to fast enough to stream hockey games without it looking like crap? Any other surprises I might be in for? The last thing I want to do is sign a 2 year contract and then realize my viewing experience is going to suck.

This was my biggest fear because I watch four games at a time some nights at 50/50. No issues at all, and this is with my son watching Netflix or playing Xbox at the same time. I just went down from 75/75 to save $15 a month.

If you look at the guidelines 25/25 can handle four streams at once, so 75/75 is almost overkill if you don't need it.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I'm going out on a limb by guessing that most of the folks commenting on this thread are single men. Trust me, if you have a family with diverse viewing interests, one platform is a ton easier than trying to go with multiple streaming services. I've also been with Directv for so long that all it takes is one phone call per year to get anywhere from $20-$50 off a month for being loyal.

Agreed. I have a 5-year old and a 2-year old. When we bought our current house in 2014, my older daughter was only 1. We did the cord-cutter thing and I found ways to watch hockey, baseball, football. Between my daughter starting to ask for specific shows and a certain hockey site shutting down, it was just easier to add cable tv since I was already getting my internet from the same company. Now, can't imagine getting rid of the tv service and just using streaming.

 

[217 Forever]

Agreed. I have a 5-year old and a 2-year old. When we bought our current house in 2014, my older daughter was only 1. We did the cord-cutter thing and I found ways to watch hockey, baseball, football. Between my daughter starting to ask for specific shows and a certain hockey site shutting down, it was just easier to add cable tv since I was already getting my internet from the same company. Now, can't imagine getting rid of the tv service and just using streaming.

The unsaid thing about streaming also is that you either have to be willing to watch on small devices like an ipad unless you are going to buy all smart tv's or hook up a computer monitor to your laptop.

 

[StoneHands]

This was my biggest fear because I watch four games at a time some nights at 50/50. No issues at all, and this is with my son watching Netflix or playing Xbox at the same time. I just went down from 75/75 to save $15 a month.

If you look at the guidelines 25/25 can handle four streams at once, so 75/75 is almost overkill if you don't need it.

Good to know. What the hell is the point of gigabit or even 300mbps speeds? I guess if you're a large family and maybe doing some serious gaming? I'm just trying to watch some netflix and hulu live without missing a 3rd period breakaway due to lagging or buffering.

 

[Kocur Dill]

If Madison Square Garden would come up with an app I'd be more inclined to go full Roku.

My issue is this though. How do you get around the "please go to .com and provide your service provider" so we can send you a code to view the app?

Other than illegal and unreliable Kodi streams, I don't understand the tech to watch my Roku and cut the cord at the same time when the apps are unwatchable unless you already subscribe to a vetted service provider and have that apps home station as part of your paid service. What am I missing here?

 

[patnyrnyg]

The unsaid thing about streaming also is that you either have to be willing to watch on small devices like an ipad unless you are going to buy all smart tv's or hook up a computer monitor to your laptop.

do they even sell non-smart tv's anymore?

 

[David Dennison]

The unsaid thing about streaming also is that you either have to be willing to watch on small devices like an ipad unless you are going to buy all smart tv's or hook up a computer monitor to your laptop.

Huh? Fire sticks or Rokus are like $20-30.

 

[Sam Spade]

If Madison Square Garden would come up with an app I'd be more inclined to go full Roku.

My issue is this though. How do you get around the "please go to .com and provide your service provider" so we can send you a code to view the app?

Other than illegal and unreliable Kodi streams, I don't understand the tech to watch my Roku and cut the cord at the same time when the apps are unwatchable unless you already subscribe to a vetted service provider and have that apps home station as part of your paid service. What am I missing here?

It gets tricky for sure. I have one friends HBO sign in for HBO GO, another friends sign in for NBCsports through their Comcast account, and I trade this for MY Netflix sign-on.

What will really screw us all is when you need to sign on from the same IP address for all accounts.

 

[217 Forever]

Huh? Fire sticks or Rokus are like $20-30.

Or them

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Legitimately curious about that statistic. How is YouTube classified? As not tv? This is purely speculation on my part, but it seems to be that the younger generation watches more YouTube than TV and I wonder if that accounts for a good portion of that difference.

I guess what I'm saying in today's day and age, what is "tv" Even? Because I'm not always sure or at least I suspect different people can be referring to different things when they use the term.

My kids have a screen on like... it's a bit scary, but it must be 10 hrs a day most days during the summer break. Most times it's video games. But they can do 10 hours straight on YouTube too when the spirit moves them. Of course, they don't have the option of regular TV anymore, since we ditched that. But I can't think of anything they'd be watching there instead (which is part of the reason why we ditched it). They'll binge watch some cartoon (younger ones) or anime series on Netflix at times too. But I think the traditional model of TV watching is just permanently defunct for them. The idea you'd tune in a certain time every week for a single episode of a show with commercials every 9-12 minutes is just something that would be totally alien and unfathomable to them. If that model isn't already defunct for the rest of the general population, it sure will be in a decade or so when this generation grows up and has their own buying power.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ratings only measure what is being watched, not if people are sitting down and watching it.

Older people will leave the TV on during the day on specific channels as a bit of background noise. You see this in doctor's offices, dentists, and in workplaces that have public TV sets running.

Ratings systems still haven't developed an effective system to correctly calculate DVR usage as well.

This would be a lot more significant if the working-age demographics were all at the same level, and the 65+ demographic were dramatically higher than all the others.

But it’s pretty clear from the slope of that data that the younger a person is, generally they just watch less TV.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

My kids have a screen on like... it's a bit scary, but it must be 10 hrs a day most days during the summer break. Most times it's video games. But they can do 10 hours straight on YouTube too when the spirit moves them. Of course, they don't have the option of regular TV anymore, since we ditched that. But I can't think of anything they'd be watching there instead (which is part of the reason why we ditched it). They'll binge watch some cartoon (younger ones) or anime series on Netflix at times too. But I think the traditional model of TV watching is just permanently defunct for them. The idea you'd tune it a certain time every week for a single episode of a show with commercials every 9-12 minutes is just something that would be totally alien and unfathomable to them. If that model isn't already defunct for the rest of the general population, it sure will be in a decade or so when this generation grows up and has their own buying power.

Yeah this is the on demand generation for sure. We try to limit screen time for my 2 year old, but she knows whatever show or movie she wants is just a push or button away. There's no waiting for something to come on. It's funny how technology changes and we change with it. I remember in high school using dial up internet and thinking it was the coolest thing in the world. Now if a page takes 2 seconds to load and I want to punch the screen.

I do wonder if some provider or show ever intentionally tries to go back to that, or at least slows the release of the episodes (maybe a few at a time, instead of dropping the whole season at once) in an attempt to create a more shared experience. I guess I just look at how GOT was looked at and talked about in the culture. There was so much content and conversation surrounding the show and the wait allowed everyone to be on the same schedule. I personally enjoyed that. That had to be a boon for HBO. I wonder if Netflix would ultimately benefit from say 2 episodes a week of Stranger things over the course of the month. I would think that would increase the content surrounding the show. I guess the obvious counter to all of this is that it might work for only the biggest shows and for 95% of the time it wouldn't help.

 

[LadyStanley]

Ratings systems still haven't developed an effective system to correctly calculate DVR usage as well.

Most "TV" ratings quoted in this forum are the "overnight" ratings which look at the eyeballs watching live. However, there is tracking of DVR'd/timeshifted shows that are +24 hours and +1 week (IOW watched within 24 hours or one week of first airing, respectively). I don't know of a good source for that.

The unsaid thing about streaming also is that you either have to be willing to watch on small devices like an ipad unless you are going to buy all smart tv's or hook up a computer monitor to your laptop.

My TiVo DVR (and my BluRay player to a lesser extent) give me access to a number of streaming services. I have access to: Netflix, HBO Go, Prime Video (Amazon), Hulu, YouTube, EPIX, Vudu, Tubi and about a dozen others (with ability to add apps if they offer TiVo compatible service).

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Yeah this is the on demand generation for sure. We try to limit screen time for my 2 year old, but she knows whatever show or movie she wants is just a push or button away. There's no waiting for something to come on. It's funny how technology changes and we change with it. I remember in high school using dial up internet and thinking it was the coolest thing in the world. Now if a page takes 2 seconds to load and I want to punch the screen.

I do wonder if some provider or show ever intentionally tries to go back to that, or at least slows the release of the episodes (maybe a few at a time, instead of dropping the whole season at once) in an attempt to create a more shared experience. I guess I just look at how GOT was looked at and talked about in the culture. There was so much content and conversation surrounding the show and the wait allowed everyone to be on the same schedule. I personally enjoyed that. That had to be a boon for HBO. I wonder if Netflix would ultimately benefit from say 2 episodes a week of Stranger things over the course of the month. I would think that would increase the content surrounding the show. I guess the obvious counter to all of this is that it might work for only the biggest shows and for 95% of the time it wouldn't help.

Yeah, there are some exceptional holdouts... GOT or... before a few seasons ago Walking Dead... or some things like that I will admit I played along with tradition and the Water Cooler... but those aren't things my kids are watching. I think if you tried to do that to them a few years down the road they would not stand for it. It might still work stringing us older folks along. But the on-demand generation coming up... I can't see it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I do wonder if some provider or show ever intentionally tries to go back to that, or at least slows the release of the episodes (maybe a few at a time, instead of dropping the whole season at once) in an attempt to create a more shared experience. I guess I just look at how GOT was looked at and talked about in the culture. There was so much content and conversation surrounding the show and the wait allowed everyone to be on the same schedule. I personally enjoyed that. That had to be a boon for HBO. I wonder if Netflix would ultimately benefit from say 2 episodes a week of Stranger things over the course of the month. I would think that would increase the content surrounding the show. I guess the obvious counter to all of this is that it might work for only the biggest shows and for 95% of the time it wouldn't help.

I think we'll see this kind of strategy developing as the content providers fight it out. GOT drove massive subscription rates for HBO, and you could tell by the end they were absolutely desperate to promote their content and keep people from leaving in droves when it ended. I have a feeling Netflix is going to go through the same life cycle with Stranger Things, especially as a show built around young actors. Releasing the episodes slowly over a longer period of time would allow them to hold off the exodus of subscribers when that show ends, which gives them time to cultivate new shows and hopefully hit another nerve.

For some of these companies, slowing down the rollout of a popular show might actually make the difference in whether they are a casualty of this flood of different services. If I'm Netflix I'm going to sloooow it down with my most popular products.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I think we'll see this kind of strategy developing as the content providers fight it out. GOT drove massive subscription rates for HBO, and you could tell by the end they were absolutely desperate to promote their content and keep people from leaving in droves when it ended. I have a feeling Netflix is going to go through the same life cycle with Stranger Things, especially as a show built around young actors. Releasing the episodes slowly over a longer period of time would allow them to hold off the exodus of subscribers when that show ends, which gives them time to cultivate new shows and hopefully hit another nerve.

For some of these companies, slowing down the rollout of a popular show might actually make the difference in whether they are a casualty of this flood of different services. If I'm Netflix I'm going to sloooow it down with my most popular products.

I think they'll try it... but it won't work. The cat is out of the bag. Everybody wants their fix NOW. Once you get people used to having their episodes totally On Demand, you can't put the cat back into the bag.

It's already bad enough when a season ends and you have to wait a whole year to binge watch the next season in a few days. I'm already leaning towards basically treating it like I do with a big epic fantasy novel series... just wait a decade if that's what it takes until the WHOLE THING is there to devour. I want to fully immerse, enjoy, move on to the next thing. I'm not going to wait around. Not for a week, not for a year.

There are going to be some big casualties and a fair amount of market turmoil for quite a while I expect. Maybe there will just be a whole lot of niche markets for different people who have different preferences and patience thresholds. One-size-fits-all might not be the market that works anymore?

 

[217 Forever]

Most "TV" ratings quoted in this forum are the "overnight" ratings which look at the eyeballs watching live. However, there is tracking of DVR'd/timeshifted shows that are +24 hours and +1 week (IOW watched within 24 hours or one week of first airing, respectively). I don't know of a good source for that.



My TiVo DVR (and my BluRay player to a lesser extent) give me access to a number of streaming services. I have access to: Netflix, HBO Go, Prime Video (Amazon), Hulu, YouTube, EPIX, Vudu, Tubi and about a dozen others (with ability to add apps if they offer TiVo compatible service).

I got schooled on this already but thanks. I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't feel like going through the trouble of re-configuring the set-up of 4 televisions in the house unless it's a considerable savings (like $40 a month or something is not truly considerable to me) which given the diverse interests in the house and how many streaming services might be needed I just don't see it being a realistic option for me. For younger folks with only one or two people in the house and who are more price sensitive I totally get it.

 

[LadyStanley]

@217 Forever I have ONE TV in the house, so makes it easier.

 

[TheLegend]

The 800 pound gorilla with the mouse ears on just weighed in.....

 

[Pilky01]

Just looked over TSN and SNET’s schedule for the coming weekend. Opening weekend of the Premiership and neither network has a single game to air.

I bought into DAZN for the $150/year because it’s shch a good deal and because I specifically want to watch the premiership, but I am not convinced this is a good setup, long term, for the premiership. They lose mainstream exposure so casual or potential fans are off the table right from the jump.

Also seems like Prime Time Sports is fixing for a major shakeup. There was no holiday round table this past Monday. It was just theee daytime fill ins yammering about the Leafs contract issues.

I’ll miss it. I’ve listened to the PTS podcast, specifically the Friday/holiday round tables, for well over a decade now and I guess with Bobs exit a full scale overhaul was coming sooner rather than later.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

The 800 pound gorilla with the mouse ears on just weighed in.....

I really think Disney is set up to be a monster, assuming they can execute the platform properly. Praticuarly if they add some bigger sports to the ESPN stream.

 

[NCRanger]

I really think Disney is set up to be a monster, assuming they can execute the platform properly. Praticuarly if they add some bigger sports to the ESPN stream.

I'm not so sure. Disney has lost a ton of money on the service. Stock is getting crushed this morning. Many people are only cable/satellite subscribers because of sports. Some of us are extremely annoyed that an ESPN+ even exists and they want even more money for it. They start moving "bigger" sports on to that platform, they'll lose somewhere, either in "traditional" subs or on the streaming service. They can't win in both places.

 

[David Dennison]

The 800 pound gorilla with the mouse ears on just weighed in.....

I'm not so sure. Disney has lost a ton of money on the service. Stock is getting crushed this morning. Many people are only cable/satellite subscribers because of sports. Some of us are extremely annoyed that an ESPN+ even exists and they want even more money for it. They start moving "bigger" sports on to that platform, they'll lose somewhere, either in "traditional" subs or on the streaming service. They can't win in both places.

This logic is akin to Kodak not investing in digital cameras, you dont double down on old tech because it's more profitable in the short term.

ESPN has lost tons of money over the past few years due to cord cutting and their high fees are a big part of the reason that cable packages were/are uncompetitive with streaming sites. They are never going to be the juggernaut they were 10-20 years ago, but a Disney+ subscriber is better than nothing and will keep them in a lot of homes.

That's a pretty deadly bundle though, we will see if Netflix can respond with some sort of sports content deal. I have Netflix and Hulu and Amazon currently, I might cancel Netflix when this becomes available.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I'm not so sure. Disney has lost a ton of money on the service. Stock is getting crushed this morning. Many people are only cable/satellite subscribers because of sports. Some of us are extremely annoyed that an ESPN+ even exists and they want even more money for it. They start moving "bigger" sports on to that platform, they'll lose somewhere, either in "traditional" subs or on the streaming service. They can't win in both places.

Disney stock is getting crushed today because they missed earnings yesterday as well as (to a lesser extent) the overall market taking a beating because of the trade war this past week. But the company is fine. Stock is up 17% on the year, even with today's hit.

Subs are going to be going down as people cut the cord generally. There's no turning back on that. At some point, there's going to be a major sport that does one of their big "tv" deals online. Ideally ESPN would be able to secure a package that would allow them broadcast via the network as well as streaming, but I'm not sure how the leagues will want to handle that.