pay TV is doomed! DOOMED!

[Temis the Vorta]

So says a fancy-pants analyst.

Lots of young adults aren’t cutting the cord; they never subscribe in the first place. Anninger says that while the evidence is still mostly anecdotal, “we are confident that a relationship exists” between high pay TV prices and declining subscriptions. And the growing group of “cord nevers” (as opposed to “cord cutters”) is “the biggest challenge pay TV will face over the next 10 years” after piracy and soaring programming costs — although “it does not feel like the industry is yet willing to admit that reality.” Execs still accept the conventional wisdom that the recent decline in pay TV subs is due to the weak economy. Once things improve, they believe, then young people will jump on the pay TV bandwagon — especially when they have kids. But Anninger says things could play out differently: These young adults and their children will have grown up “in a world in which the Internet (at least from a technological perspective) was capable of delivering a reasonably satisfying video experience” for free, or a lot less than a cable or satellite TV subscription. They’re content to watch shows on small screens, at less than high-definition quality, and are just as happy to spend time with social media and video games as they are to watch a sitcom, drama, or reality program. Pay TV providers only have one real choice, Anninger says: They must offer consumers lower-priced choices, for example packages that include fewer channels than operators pack into their popular expanded basic services. The view that pay TV will regain its footing when the economy turns “is Pollyannaish.”

Works for me. Even if I don't ever kick Comcast to the curb, as long as others do, I look forward to reaping the advantages of the cable companies being forced to offer packages such, as for instance, No Pricey Sports Channels at lower cost.

Or maybe I'll just eventually admit that I don't need Comcast for even live TV events (like there's no video on the internet?) I'm sticking with cable out of sheer laziness and inertia at this point...

 

[the G-man]

This would seem to indicate that pay TV is going to stay alive and well. After all, content on things like the iTunes store, Netflix and Hulu-plus isn't free.

 

[Morpheus 02]

i'm with ya on sticking to Comcast because it's too "hard" to dump it....is theresome kind of online survey i copuld take to help me determine what are my best options based on my viewing habits? Weirdly, i'm scared to see what lower cost options i really have. (Seems like too much work).

 

[Morpheus 02]

This would seem to indicate that pay TV is going to stay alive and well. After all, content on things like the iTunes store, Netflix and Hulu-plus isn't free.

Yeah, but the cost for these are way lower....so really, it's OVERPRICED TV is doomed...

 

[Dream]

I'm sticking with cable out of sheer laziness and inertia at this point...

Don't forget The Walking Dead.

 

[davejames]

Personally I have a hard time getting "into" a TV episode or movie the same way while watching on a computer. It just feels too odd and unnatural, after a lifetime of watching everything on TV.

Definitely not crazy about my high DirectTV bill though.

 

[FreezeC77]

and yet somehow the audience for cable shows seems to be rising while the audience for freetv shows seems to be falling.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

This would seem to indicate that pay TV is going to stay alive and well. After all, content on things like the iTunes store, Netflix and Hulu-plus isn't free.

The pay part will stick around. It's the TV part that won't.

I'm sticking with cable out of sheer laziness and inertia at this point...

Don't forget The Walking Dead.

I could see that eventually on DVD (Netflix) or streaming (whichever service would give me everything I'd want to watch, and that ain't Netflix). Really, all I'm paying for is the privilege of seeing stuff six months sooner, and is that really worth paying for? I don't actually care when I see anything. I'll get around to it all sooner or later.

Personally I have a hard time getting "into" a TV episode or movie the same way while watching on a computer. It just feels too odd and unnatural, after a lifetime of watching everything on TV.

I'd want to stream shows to my TV. Okay, now that I'm on a roll, here's what I want:

1. One service that gives me everything in one convenient place. Old movies, old shows, new movies, new shows - broadcast, basic cable, premium cable, everything - and documentaries. If I find out that something cool exists and I can't get it, I'm going to get very cranky.

2. A good way of tracking titles that interest me but have not been released to streaming or even necessarily premiered. I want to type in the name of the show and have the gizmo remember a year later to tell me if that show turns up as available because I'm sure not going to remember it.

3. A good way of recommending shows based on my previous viewing and ratings. Netflix does this well, but my stupid Comcast DVR is clueless. Why do I have to do all the work?

4. A pony, but not one of those ponies everyone keeps going on about. Those ponies annoy me.

Okay, who does that? I'll dump Comcast for that.

 

[the G-man]

This would seem to indicate that pay TV is going to stay alive and well. After all, content on things like the iTunes store, Netflix and Hulu-plus isn't free.

The pay part will stick around. It's the TV part that won't.

TV is simply a type of monitor. Yes, we will watch "TV" on computers but those computers will also stream to sets in our living rooms for times when we want a "big screen" experience. In fact, I think today's reports out of Apple demonstrate that.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

Indeed. I've never subscribed to cable; No regrets on my part. I'd rather fool around on the internet or play a video game than watch TV just to pass time. The only two shows I'm really invested in on TV right now are Futurama and Doctor Who. I pirate Futurama when it's in season (13 episodes in the summer) and my folks DVR Doctor Who for me -- although I'd pirate that, too, if need be. I'm usually against pirating but I'm not goin to pay a monthly fee just to watch two shows that are only on for a few months a year -- especially when internet alone is usually a high price anyway.

EDIT: On the other hand, Radio is still around, in a capacicity. So go figure.

 

[ATimson]

I'm usually against pirating but I'm not goin to pay a monthly fee just to watch two shows that are only on for a few months a year -- especially when internet alone is usually a high price anyway.

Agreed. The only reason I have cable is because it's the exact same price to get Internet from Comcast with or without cable (and satellite is my only option otherwise, which is not affordable for me).

I'm willing to pay extra for content that I can keep permanently - I've got lots of DVDs and Blu-rays to prove it! - but not for transient content.

 

[Morpheus 02]

4. A pony, but not one of those ponies everyone keeps going on about. Those ponies annoy me.

Okay, who does that? I'll dump Comcast for that.

ATT does.

"I'm not missing Happy Pony."

 

[EnderAKH]

My wife and I are trying an experiment in cutting the cord. We subscribed to Hulu Plus to supplement our Netflix account. In addition we subscribed to a program called PlayOn which serves video from tv websites, such as Fox, NBC, Amazon VOD, Hulu Desktop version, through a media server. Thus we can watch all of this on our tv through our playstation 3.

 

[Kelso]

Agreed. The only reason I have cable is because it's the exact same price to get Internet from Comcast with or without cable (and satellite is my only option otherwise, which is not affordable for me).

Same here. Though, I think our service is actually cheaper with the cable than without. Go figure.

I wouldn't pay more for it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I cut the cord months ago, after Law & Order: Criminal Intent ended. Damn glad I did. Cut my cable bill in half (I still get phone and Internet through my cable co).

And since there is still a signal coming into my home - to provide said phone and net - I still get some basic network channels for free.

The only TV shows that I still watch I either get from iTunes (Law & Order: SVU) or can watch for free (This Week In Baseball). SVU can be had for free from NBC's website but I'm a collector so I keep the iTunes eps.

 

[Random_Spock]

This would seem to indicate that pay TV is going to stay alive and well. After all, content on things like the iTunes store, Netflix and Hulu-plus isn't free.

Yep. I only had the stuff for a month once for free via Charter, since the managed to screw things up once again. They're known for it too .

After having the stuff for a month (and catching up on my Dexter ), I found out it just wasn't worth paying $10 or so dollars per channel for it. I'd be out of house and home if I did... and all for -- mainly rerun movies and shows I don't even watch.

As for Hulu-plus, at least it's cheaper... not by much... but at least you get to choose the content that you want to watch.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

This would seem to indicate that pay TV is going to stay alive and well. After all, content on things like the iTunes store, Netflix and Hulu-plus isn't free.

The pay part will stick around. It's the TV part that won't.

TV is simply a type of monitor. Yes, we will watch "TV" on computers but those computers will also stream to sets in our living rooms for times when we want a "big screen" experience. In fact, I think today's reports out of Apple demonstrate that.

"TV" also connotes the whole history of what TV has been - an inherently non-interactive medium that has imposed certain restrictions on its content, most notably the economics of scarcity. The TV business is still locked into that mindset, even though they are increasingly competing with emerging businesses based on the economics of abundance that the internet permits.

I dunno what you call the product that is made specifically for the internet (now Microsoft is getting into the act), but "TV" seems wrong. I'd just call it drama, or interactive drama (if they figure that out), or comedy or whatever. The medium no longer really matters.

EDIT: On the other hand, Radio is still around, in a capacicity. So go figure.

That just goes to show that ad-supported free TV won't die out too soon, either. Like radio, it will morph into something that can survive. But the stuff anyone is going to see via the internet will have to be priced very differently. Some of it will be free, and some will be very cheap. Consumers demand it.

And you're a great example of why the content producers need to stop basing their businesses on the economics of scarcity. They want you to pay a lot of money for a lot of content (economics of scarcity). You'd be willing to pay a little money (I presume) for a little content - two shows (economics of abundance mean the ability to select from a vast array of possibilities and get exactly what you want for a fair price).

Why shouldn't they accommodate you? They should also accommodate people who want just three shows, four shows, four hundred shows, every iteration imaginable. With content moving to the internet, there's no excuse not to. And the fact that they're not doing that just means they're making no money off people like you, and people like you will become more and more prevalent in the future.

 

[23skidoo]

Personally I have a hard time getting "into" a TV episode or movie the same way while watching on a computer. It just feels too odd and unnatural, after a lifetime of watching everything on TV.

Yeah, and physically uncomfortable. I just watched a full season of a series on my computer (I won't name it but it's a UK series that has been out for 5 years and no one is bothering to show it on television in North America or release it to DVD so my conscience is clear) and I could only stand to watch about 10 minutes at a time. I don't care what people say - a 24-inch monitor or dinky iPad is no match for a 52-inch plasma.

But back on point, the notion that "pay TV" is dying is a misnomer. It's just changing venue. Just like everyone is talking about "free news" because we've had years of free-access news websites, but the companies behind them realize they need to make money (to, like, hire journalists who can actually write with a s*it) so they're starting to put up paywalls. It's a bit like closing the barndoors after the horses have left, true, and like Napster Canada some companies won't make it, but if it becomes the standard then people will get used to it.

And anyway, just wait until useage-based billing like what ISPs in Canada are trying to get implemented becomes the norm. That'll make some people think twice about watching everything online...

Alex

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Paywalls aren't the solution for any content that people don't use professionally. You can justify paying for content that helps you make money, but not for general educational or entertainment purposes. Paywalls just cut you off from the vast potential audience you could be reaching, and the vastness of that audience is where the real possibilities lie.

People might not be willing to pay very much for news and entertainment content. They may not be willing to pay at all, in a way they perceive as such ("payment" can be in the eye of the beholder). But there are ways to monetize content besides paywalls.

I think for starters the ad industry needs to undergo a profound change so they aren't just stupidly plopping ads meant for traditional TV onto the internet. Glitzy 30-sec spots are adapted to the old medium. Let's have something adapted to the new medium (and obnoxious banners that scream at you and piss everyone off and just get clicked on by kids who aren't your target market is not it.)

The solution for ads will revolve around answering the question, "what can the internet do that TV can't?" One obvious answer is target individual tastes and interests directly.

Ford pays for airtime on CSI because they predict that a certain percentage of viewers are in the market for Fords. So that means they're wasting some of their money on people who aren't in the market for Fords. The internet theoretically allows them to show ads only to exactly the people who will respond to those ads, and saves Ford a lot of money.

It also opens up the entertainment-and-news-supporting ad business to companies that aren't in the Fortune 500. They might not be able to afford the scattershot approach that Ford is taking on CSI because their products are too targetted, but they should be able to afford perfectly targetted ads. Google AdSense is already doing this of course. This system just needs to be applied to the entertainment and news content on the internet, and the old TV ad system needs to be discarded.

 

[RoJoHen]

The only reason I pay for cable is because my cable company provides my internet. I haven't actually watched cable in months.

In fact, the only companies I pay to watch any kind of programming are Netflix (for shows and movies I don't want to own) and Best Buy (for stuff I do want to own).

I watched the Lord of the Rings marathon on Encore this past weekend while I was at my parents' house because there was nothing better on, but I already own it, so if I were at my own house I would have just watched the Blu-Ray.

The only TV currently on the air that I pay any attention to is Doctor Who, but my cable provider doesn't have BBC America, so I can't watch it on TV if I wanted to.