The high cost of pay TV is why cord-cutting soared in 2017 - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TMC · 03-17-2018, 03:45 AM

http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/cor...tv-1202728922/

According to a report from TiVo, 87% of cord-cutters cited the high cost of cable as the reason they pulled the plug. As Variety reports, "the average price U.S. consumers said they would pay for a package of self-selected channels is $35.87 per month. That’s in line with the prices of DirecTV Now, Sling TV and YouTube TV. By contrast, only 15% of pay-TV customers say they pay less than $50 per month — and 56% said they shell out $76 or more per month for cable or satellite TV." ALSO: Former Fox/WB/NBC boss Garth Ancier reveals how he cut the cord.

Regulus · 03-17-2018, 09:01 AM

Notice that they didn't mention the insane amounts of advertising as a reason for ditching pay TV. They are treating this as "the elephant in the room". Everyone whom I've talked who've cut the cord agrees that there was WAY too much advertising as well.

Svenfan1234 · 03-17-2018, 12:14 PM

Cable channels have WAY more advertising than an OTA network even, like Antenna TV or MeTV! Those have significantly less commercials per hour than any given cable channel... given, a few are commercial free, but those are far and few in between. And even though Logo shows a couple classic shows, they have way too many commercials and too much bad editing which makes it a bad channel.

mets82 · 03-17-2018, 04:12 PM

Bottom line is that even if they stopped with so many damn commercials and off the clock programming, I think they would gain more customers who'd be willing to pay for tv and not cord-cut.

Regulus · 03-17-2018, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mets82

Bottom line is that even if they stopped with so many damn commercials and off the clock programming, I think they would gain more customers who'd be willing to pay for tv and not cord-cut.

Customers would like to have "a-la-carte" pay TV where they could pick only the channels they and not hundreds of channels they never watch.

I'd like to see the commercials RATED with the "V-Chip" so parents need not fear seeing commercials for Viagra, Cialis, Kotex, Tampax or any other "adult product" being flashed into their children's faces while they're watching a show.

bgva · 03-17-2018, 09:52 PM

It's been a while since I watched a Viacom network like MTV or BET, but last time I did, they had commercial breaks every 10 minutes, and the breaks lasted at least 3 or 4 minutes.

One reason why I cut the cord and looked back. I don't even have much desire to get Sling. It is what it is.

Svenfan1234 · 03-17-2018, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgva

It's been a while since I watched a Viacom network like MTV or BET, but last time I did, they had commercial breaks every 10 minutes, and the breaks lasted at least 3 or 4 minutes.

One reason why I cut the cord and looked back. I don't even have much desire to get Sling. It is what it is.

Last time I watched TV Land for Andy Griffith, they had like 5 6 or 7-minute breaks!

Never watching TV Land again!

OR that horrible network Logo!

stevea · 03-18-2018, 12:40 PM

NEVER watch when they go off the clock. They just add even more ads, never more program.

Regulus · 03-18-2018, 01:30 PM

Commercials pay for 40% of pay-TV's programming.

Guess who pays for the remaining 60%. angryfire

bmasters9 · 03-18-2018, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regulus

Notice that they didn't mention the insane amounts of advertising as a reason for ditching pay TV. They are treating this as "the elephant in the room". Everyone whom I've talked who've cut the cord agrees that there was WAY too much advertising as well.

Which is why I don't blame you, William, for having the lion's share of your shows on disc releases!

Duster76 · 03-18-2018, 03:26 PM

I could write about this topic for hours and still not scratch the surface. I'll try to control myself and just address a few major points. Sports programming is a big part of the problem. There is way too much of it, it is way too expensive to produce, and it's loaded on the back of every cable subscriber. In my area we are stuck with not one, not two, but three regional sports networks. On top of that you have ESPN the single most expensive cable network on the family basic level. We need legislation at the Federal level to require cable companies to strip these networks out of all basic and secondary level packages, they should be carried on a premium platform or stand alone. Why do I say Federal level, Washington created this problem in the first place by allowing these professional sports league to operate as unregulated monopolies. Adding that to the cable company monopolies and your have rampant consumer ripoff.

The second major point is this, cable was never meant to be what it has become, a full size competitor to the major entertainment networks of the day (CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox). Cable was meant to be a support product, concentrated programming for individuals with more specific tastes (interested in history, odd sports, the arts, movie buffs, news and current affairs programming). I think the modern audience is demanding a reasonably priced package ($25-$35 dollars) that would provide that unique enhanced viewing experience plus address reception issues. The premium content (sports, original entertainment programming, first run movies) are a natural for streaming services.

It's going to take awhile but the younger coming of age audience will force this issue, they will not allow themselves to be conscripted into subsidizing cable monopolies, sports leagues and large content providers for much longer.

stevea · 03-18-2018, 06:48 PM

Traditional cable is in a death spiral, is it not? You read that they are constantly losing subscribers. They continue to raise prices, forcing more people to dump them. They need to take the initiative, and spin these sports networks off into their own package. Something's gotta give.

I resent having to pay for others' sports networks, since I never watch them. That's just a small part of the problem, though. There are tons of niche cable channels that must have minuscule audiences. I'm forced to pay for all that junk, just because I'm interested in ONE of these channels.

Coffeecup · 03-25-2018, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regulus

Customers would like to have "a-la-carte" pay TV where they could pick only the channels they and not hundreds of channels they never watch.

I'd like to see the commercials RATED with the "V-Chip" so parents need not fear seeing commercials for Viagra, Cialis, Kotex, Tampax or any other "adult product" being flashed into their children's faces while they're watching a show.

I agree that a la Carte would be nice. As for commercials,I remember the days when I was little and I would see Playtex bra commercials and wince.

Regulus · 03-25-2018, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffeecup

I agree that a la Carte would be nice. As for commercials,I remember the days when I was little and I would see Playtex bra commercials and wince.

They always had commercials for them during the game shows that used to dominate the TV in the 1960s (as well as during the afternoon soap operas as well). Then they began hawking women's hygiene products in the 1970s.

Alas, it only went downhill from there.

Regulus · 03-25-2018, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmasters9

Which is why I don't blame you, William, for having the lion's share of your shows on disc releases!

If all goes well the number of of movie serials I own on DVD will surpass the 100 mark in April.

03-17-2018, 03:45 AM	#1
TMC Member Forum Idol Join Date: Jan 09, 2001 Posts: 126,096	The high cost of pay TV is why cord-cutting soared in 2017 http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/cor...tv-1202728922/ According to a report from TiVo, 87% of cord-cutters cited the high cost of cable as the reason they pulled the plug. As Variety reports, "the average price U.S. consumers said they would pay for a package of self-selected channels is $35.87 per month. That’s in line with the prices of DirecTV Now, Sling TV and YouTube TV. By contrast, only 15% of pay-TV customers say they pay less than $50 per month — and 56% said they shell out $76 or more per month for cable or satellite TV." ALSO: Former Fox/WB/NBC boss Garth Ancier reveals how he cut the cord.

03-17-2018, 09:01 AM	#2
Regulus Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Feb 07, 2011 Location: Port Orange, Florida Avatar - Poiuyt Posts: 3,374	Notice that they didn't mention the insane amounts of advertising as a reason for ditching pay TV. They are treating this as "the elephant in the room". Everyone whom I've talked who've cut the cord agrees that there was WAY too much advertising as well.
	__________________ Grail Shows: *Doc Elliot, Owen Marshall-Counselor of Law, Here's Boomer, Three for the Road, Holmes and YoYo* Bucket List Shows: *Hot Wheels, Skyhawks, Run Joe Run, Westwood* Last edited by Regulus; 03-17-2018 at 09:25 PM.

03-17-2018, 12:14 PM	#3
Svenfan1234 Member Forum Star Join Date: Dec 12, 2015 Posts: 11,200	Cable channels have WAY more advertising than an OTA network even, like Antenna TV or MeTV! Those have significantly less commercials per hour than any given cable channel... given, a few are commercial free, but those are far and few in between. And even though Logo shows a couple classic shows, they have way too many commercials and too much bad editing which makes it a bad channel.
	__________________ [

03-17-2018, 04:12 PM	#4
mets82 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Mar 14, 2011 Location: Connecticut Posts: 5,058	Bottom line is that even if they stopped with so many damn commercials and off the clock programming, I think they would gain more customers who'd be willing to pay for tv and not cord-cut.
	__________________ http://www.superbowlgreatness.blogspot.com/ Please check out my blog. I vent on all things. TV, sports etc. you name it. Its also a work in progress. Check out and see what you think.

03-18-2018, 01:30 PM	#9
Regulus Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Feb 07, 2011 Location: Port Orange, Florida Avatar - Poiuyt Posts: 3,374	What commercials pay for Commercials pay for 40% of pay-TV's programming. Guess who pays for the remaining 60%. angryfire

03-17-2018, 09:52 PM	#6
bgva Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 10, 2015 Location: VA Posts: 413	It's been a while since I watched a Viacom network like MTV or BET, but last time I did, they had commercial breaks every 10 minutes, and the breaks lasted at least 3 or 4 minutes. One reason why I cut the cord and looked back. I don't even have much desire to get Sling. It is what it is.

03-18-2018, 12:40 PM	#8
stevea 22 Years On Sitcoms Moderator Forum Legend Join Date: Aug 13, 2003 Location: Indy Posts: 44,663	NEVER watch when they go off the clock. They just add even more ads, never more program.

03-18-2018, 03:26 PM	#11
Duster76 Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 01, 2008 Location: New jersey Posts: 1,653	I could write about this topic for hours and still not scratch the surface. I'll try to control myself and just address a few major points. Sports programming is a big part of the problem. There is way too much of it, it is way too expensive to produce, and it's loaded on the back of every cable subscriber. In my area we are stuck with not one, not two, but three regional sports networks. On top of that you have ESPN the single most expensive cable network on the family basic level. We need legislation at the Federal level to require cable companies to strip these networks out of all basic and secondary level packages, they should be carried on a premium platform or stand alone. Why do I say Federal level, Washington created this problem in the first place by allowing these professional sports league to operate as unregulated monopolies. Adding that to the cable company monopolies and your have rampant consumer ripoff. The second major point is this, cable was never meant to be what it has become, a full size competitor to the major entertainment networks of the day (CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox). Cable was meant to be a support product, concentrated programming for individuals with more specific tastes (interested in history, odd sports, the arts, movie buffs, news and current affairs programming). I think the modern audience is demanding a reasonably priced package ($25-$35 dollars) that would provide that unique enhanced viewing experience plus address reception issues. The premium content (sports, original entertainment programming, first run movies) are a natural for streaming services. It's going to take awhile but the younger coming of age audience will force this issue, they will not allow themselves to be conscripted into subsidizing cable monopolies, sports leagues and large content providers for much longer.

03-18-2018, 06:48 PM	#12
stevea 22 Years On Sitcoms Moderator Forum Legend Join Date: Aug 13, 2003 Location: Indy Posts: 44,663	Traditional cable is in a death spiral, is it not? You read that they are constantly losing subscribers. They continue to raise prices, forcing more people to dump them. They need to take the initiative, and spin these sports networks off into their own package. Something's gotta give. I resent having to pay for others' sports networks, since I never watch them. That's just a small part of the problem, though. There are tons of niche cable channels that must have minuscule audiences. I'm forced to pay for all that junk, just because I'm interested in ONE of these channels.