TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > TiVo TV Talk > Now Playing - TV Show Talk
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-26-2013, 06:45 PM   #1
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,327
TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

From Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-...-of-tv-2013-11
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 07:40 PM   #2
ElJay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,877
I am waiting for TWC to encrypt everything and then I'll be gone. I have cable TV at this point for the convenience only, with an HTPC that records six or so hours of TV a week for me (no sports or "news"). That means I'm getting about 26 hours of content a month for $80, and half of that I could probably receive over the air with a well-placed antenna. Regardless, with my usage pattern that's $3.08 per hour of content. That cost is pretty much on par with buying individual episodes of shows on Vudu.
ElJay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 08:04 PM   #3
DevdogAZ
Give em Hell, Devils
 
DevdogAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 37,211
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. The basic gist is that more and more TV viewers are canceling their cable subscriptions cutting the cord and moving to other forms of entertainment, such as online streaming video. And at the same time, broadband subscriptions are dropping as well as the availability of free wifi increases. So more and more people are relying on Starbucks and other such places to provide their entertainment needs and they aren't paying the cable providers anymore.

Meanwhile, the cable providers are having their highest revenue ever, because they continue to increase their prices. So fewer customers are providing higher revenue. But that won't last for long, as more and more people cancel their subscriptions, the cable providers won't be able to raise rates fast enough to offset the losses, and the more they raise their rates, the faster people will cancel.

Seems to me we're at the beginning of a death spiral for the big cable/internet providers, and the only way to stop the momentum would be for these providers to take control of their costs and reverse the constant cost increases. But since they are simply passing on the increases from dozens of content providers, who constantly want higher and higher subscriber fees, the cable/internet providers are powerless to control the cost increases and thus can't do anything but hold on and ride this thing to the bottom. It will be very interesting to see how this all shakes out over the next decade. I'm sure that if Google could figure out a way to provide free broadband wifi to everyone in the U.S, they'd do it in a heartbeat and essentially put all the cable providers out of business.
__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
DevdogAZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 08:26 PM   #4
Azlen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 1,912
So is everyone ready for amateurs on youtube to provide all of their at home entertainment? If content creators aren't paid then they won't be providing any more content then we're all stuck watching Jenna Marbles and the like.
Azlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 08:33 PM   #5
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,703
I would like to see this breakdown by age. I suspect the older generation is consistent but the young'ns are developing new behaviors like social media.

Also since media is in so many places I don't think they know how to aggregate it. They just know the traditional vehicles are shrinking. I hear about bingwatching and other new ways of consuming and wonder if they captured that.

I have always felt there is a mistake in their somewhere as the older people have all the money. Of course stock markets are all about growth so they wont see it even though baby boomers will make that part of the pie a substantially growing market.
__________________
I will never forget the face of my wife as I left to go the operating room to donate my kidney and give her back her life.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 08:56 PM   #6
replaytv
I <3 Wintergreen
 
replaytv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Denver ish Colorado
Posts: 3,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post
I have always felt there is a mistake in their somewhere as the older people have all the money.
I read a report that did say that the older people have the most money, but the youngsters spend a lot more. Especially as far as a percentage of their income. So that is why advertising is pointed at the younger generations. The report was in particular talking about movies, but was in general talking about spending in general too. I did notice the last time I went to the movies on the weekend that the majority of the people in the theater were middle school and high school.
replaytv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 09:02 PM   #7
DevdogAZ
Give em Hell, Devils
 
DevdogAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 37,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azlen View Post
So is everyone ready for amateurs on youtube to provide all of their at home entertainment? If content creators aren't paid then they won't be providing any more content then we're all stuck watching Jenna Marbles and the like.
Let's not forget things like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Instant, Redbox Instant, Vudu, iTunes, etc. that allow people access to professional content without a cable or broadband subscription, provided they can find free wifi.
__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
DevdogAZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 09:03 PM   #8
jlb
NCC-1701-D
 
jlb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newburyport, MA
Posts: 7,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElJay View Post
I am waiting for TWC to encrypt everything and then I'll be gone. I have cable TV at this point for the convenience only, with an HTPC that records six or so hours of TV a week for me (no sports or "news"). That means I'm getting about 26 hours of content a month for $80, and half of that I could probably receive over the air with a well-placed antenna. Regardless, with my usage pattern that's $3.08 per hour of content. That cost is pretty much on par with buying individual episodes of shows on Vudu.
We just pay about $11 per month for limited basic with comcast. Essentially it's just our locals in HD. Works well for us.
__________________
1 TiVoHD with Motorola M Cable Card and a 2TB Western Digital AV-GP WD20EURS Drive.
jlb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 09:09 PM   #9
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by replaytv View Post
I read a report that did say that the older people have the most money, but the youngsters spend a lot more. Especially as far as a percentage of their income. So that is why advertising is pointed at the younger generations. The report was in particular talking about movies, but was in general talking about spending in general too. I did notice the last time I went to the movies on the weekend that the majority of the people in the theater were middle school and high school.
I don't have your movie selection data but the last few times I went it was in the daytime and on weekends and I saw lots more older people.
The Arthouse theaters that get the independents also have older people.

That aside I think the marketing people are just being lazy. There is a big pot of money out there they are just not working for it. The baby boomers are the biggest segment of society and the retirement section will be growing leaps and bounds shortly. Over 50+ is where TV is at when you look at the stats.

CBS leads in the ratings and all due to the boomers.

Should the legacy providers just give up or embrace their biggest market?
__________________
I will never forget the face of my wife as I left to go the operating room to donate my kidney and give her back her life.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 09:35 PM   #10
Azlen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 1,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevdogAZ View Post
Let's not forget things like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Instant, Redbox Instant, Vudu, iTunes, etc. that allow people access to professional content without a cable or broadband subscription, provided they can find free wifi.
But where do you think they get most of their content from???
The original content on those outlets is typically very good but it's also fairly small.
Azlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 09:42 PM   #11
DevdogAZ
Give em Hell, Devils
 
DevdogAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 37,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post
I don't have your movie selection data but the last few times I went it was in the daytime and on weekends and I saw lots more older people. The Arthouse theaters that get the independents also have older people. That aside I think the marketing people are just being lazy. There is a big pot of money out there they are just not working for it. The baby boomers are the biggest segment of society and the retirement section will be growing leaps and bounds shortly. Over 50+ is where TV is at when you look at the stats. CBS leads in the ratings and all due to the boomers. Should the legacy providers just give up or embrace their biggest market?
We've gone over this dozens of times. Advertisers aren't shunning those over 50. They're simply paying a premium for those that are more elusive and harder to reach, which research has shown to be those in the 18-49 category. Those over 50 have more free time and watch more TV. So advertisers know they can reach over 50s whenever they want. There's no reason for advertisers to pay premium prime time ad rates to target over 50s. Over 50s are going to be exposed to the advertising whenever it's aired.

And if it's a product aimed specifically at over 50s, then advertisers will buy those ads at times when ad rates are cheaper and the percentage of viewers over 50 is higher (daytime).

For example, let's say it costs $200k to air a 30-second spot during NCIS, and there are 20 million people watching, half over 50 and half under 50. That's a cost per 1,000 impressions (CPM) of $10. Now let's say that a 30-second spot during The Price is Right costs $10,000 and there are 2 million people watching, 75% over 50 and 25% under 50. That's a CPM of $5. The CPM for TPIR is cheaper if youi're just trying to get anyone of any age to view your ads.

But let's break it down further. The CPM for under 50s during NCIS is $20 (10 million viewers, $200k). It's the same CPM for over 50s during NCIS. During TPIR, the CPM for under 50s is $20 (500k viewers, $10k) and the CPM for over 50s is $6.67 (1.5 million viewers, $10k). So if I'm trying to reach over 50s, I'm going to get the best value by advertising during TPIR. But if I'm trying to reach a broad cross section of all ages, I'm going to get the best value by advertising during NCIS, since the CPM for under 50s is the same during either program, but the under 50s watching during prime time are likely to be more affluent.

The argument gets even stronger as you break it down to more distinct age ranges, genders, income levels, etc. Advertisers pay a premium to target the demographics that are hardest to reach, because the easy to reach demos will be reached anyway. Thus, there's no incentive for an advertiser to pay $20 CPM for over 50s in primetime, when the advertiser can pay less than $7 CPM for that demographic during a different time of day. This is why prime time ratings are so focused on 18-49. It's not because the over 50s don't have any money or can't be influenced by advertising. It's simple supply and demand.
__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani

Last edited by DevdogAZ : 11-26-2013 at 10:14 PM.
DevdogAZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 11:25 PM   #12
PCurry57
Liberal Hippie Chick
 
PCurry57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 205
I pulled the TWC cable cards and returned the running adapters several months ago. The cbs fiasco want just cbs, they blocked flix and Smithsonian HD also. Paying extra already for those channels was the final straw. TWC frequent issues with running adapters their database corrupting my account where my cards and running adapter where no longer authorized, billing issues overcharging me double debiting a single check more than once. It was a 19 month nightmare, if I see the same TWC guy in best buy again that ridiculed me when I had directv I can honestly scoff at him as his product not directv is garbage. I will go back to directv when I move again and it becomes an option (damn tree). In the meantime ota and iptv works well. I do miss my msnbc, usa, a&e, syfi...
__________________
TiVo Premiere [746320]w/Slide&WD 1TB ext{Lifetime}
TiVo Premiere [746500]w/WD 1TB ext{Lifetime}
Motorola SB6141/ASUS RT-AC66R/DLink DAP-1522 as gigabit switch (wireless disabled)
PCurry57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 12:01 AM   #13
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevdogAZ View Post
We've gone over this dozens of times. Advertisers aren't shunning those over 50. They're simply paying a premium for those that are more elusive and harder to reach, which research has shown to be those in the 18-49 category. Those over 50 have more free time and watch more TV. So advertisers know they can reach over 50s whenever they want. There's no reason for advertisers to pay premium prime time ad rates to target over 50s. Over 50s are going to be exposed to the advertising whenever it's aired.

And if it's a product aimed specifically at over 50s, then advertisers will buy those ads at times when ad rates are cheaper and the percentage of viewers over 50 is higher (daytime).

For example, let's say it costs $200k to air a 30-second spot during NCIS, and there are 20 million people watching, half over 50 and half under 50. That's a cost per 1,000 impressions (CPM) of $10. Now let's say that a 30-second spot during The Price is Right costs $10,000 and there are 2 million people watching, 75% over 50 and 25% under 50. That's a CPM of $5. The CPM for TPIR is cheaper if youi're just trying to get anyone of any age to view your ads.

But let's break it down further. The CPM for under 50s during NCIS is $20 (10 million viewers, $200k). It's the same CPM for over 50s during NCIS. During TPIR, the CPM for under 50s is $20 (500k viewers, $10k) and the CPM for over 50s is $6.67 (1.5 million viewers, $10k). So if I'm trying to reach over 50s, I'm going to get the best value by advertising during TPIR. But if I'm trying to reach a broad cross section of all ages, I'm going to get the best value by advertising during NCIS, since the CPM for under 50s is the same during either program, but the under 50s watching during prime time are likely to be more affluent.

The argument gets even stronger as you break it down to more distinct age ranges, genders, income levels, etc. Advertisers pay a premium to target the demographics that are hardest to reach, because the easy to reach demos will be reached anyway. Thus, there's no incentive for an advertiser to pay $20 CPM for over 50s in primetime, when the advertiser can pay less than $7 CPM for that demographic during a different time of day. This is why prime time ratings are so focused on 18-49. It's not because the over 50s don't have any money or can't be influenced by advertising. It's simple supply and demand.
While that is a well constructed logic, I would ask how is it working for them.
Clearly advertisers invest in TV vehicles that will reach their intended audiences. They are failing dramatically at the lower age range.
Look at Agents of Shield, its ratings are dropping fast.

The charts above show that the ROI is pretty poor.

Do you invest your money on the fringes and the smaller markets?
__________________
I will never forget the face of my wife as I left to go the operating room to donate my kidney and give her back her life.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 06:33 AM   #14
Cereal_Killer
Registered User
 
Cereal_Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElJay View Post
I am waiting for TWC to encrypt everything and then I'll be gone. I have cable TV at this point for the convenience only, with an HTPC that records six or so hours of TV a week for me (no sports or "news"). That means I'm getting about 26 hours of content a month for $80, and half of that I could probably receive over the air with a well-placed antenna. Regardless, with my usage pattern that's $3.08 per hour of content. That cost is pretty much on par with buying individual episodes of shows on Vudu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlb View Post
We just pay about $11 per month for limited basic with comcast. Essentially it's just our locals in HD. Works well for us.
Are you people sure you will be saving money by reducing your cable TV subscription bill?

I also have limited basic with Comcrap and do most of my viewing from many of the sources mentioned above plus others.

But my total cable bill is no where near $11. In fact, it is only slightly lower than it was when I had everything.

Why? Because while my cable TV bill is low, my cable Internet bill is sky high and you need good quality internet (high speed) to receive good quality shows.
Cereal_Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 07:45 AM   #15
Alfer
WOOSAH!
 
Alfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Melmac
Posts: 30,175
Already discussed in HH.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...d.php?t=511662
Alfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 09:58 AM   #16
steve614
what ru lookin at?
 
steve614's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,722
Seems the only way to get a decent price on broadband internet is if you also subscribe to a TV package.
I'd bet less people would drop broadband internet if it was at a decent price without bundling.
__________________
The Man Prayer: I'm a man ...... I can change ...... If I have to ...... I guess.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

F*CK CANCER!
steve614 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 10:57 AM   #17
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCurry57 View Post
I pulled the TWC cable cards and returned the running adapters several months ago. The cbs fiasco want just cbs, they blocked flix and Smithsonian HD also. Paying extra already for those channels was the final straw. TWC frequent issues with running adapters their database corrupting my account where my cards and running adapter where no longer authorized, billing issues overcharging me double debiting a single check more than once. It was a 19 month nightmare, if I see the same TWC guy in best buy again that ridiculed me when I had directv I can honestly scoff at him as his product not directv is garbage. I will go back to directv when I move again and it becomes an option (damn tree). In the meantime ota and iptv works well. I do miss my msnbc, usa, a&e, syfi...
Far be it from me to say anything nice about Time-Warner Cable, but the deal with CBS a while back was because CBS was trying to double what they charge TWC for all of that stuff and TWC was trying to negotiate a smaller increase.
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 01:16 PM   #18
brianric
Registered User
 
brianric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pennsville, NJ
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal_Killer View Post
my cable Internet bill is sky high and you need good quality internet (high speed) to receive good quality shows.
I've always had high speed internet when it first became available. I consider the internet a necessity. I'm a volunteer photographer for various charities and upload to Facebook and Fickr the various events I shoot. I also do online banking, order my prescriptions, do my taxes, and bypass USPS. Cable TV I could live without.
brianric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 04:34 PM   #19
ElJay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal_Killer View Post
Why? Because while my cable TV bill is low, my cable Internet bill is sky high and you need good quality internet (high speed) to receive good quality shows.
I have DSL from a local provider that can sustain about 8mbps. This is satisfactory speed for 1080p streaming from Netflix or Vudu.
ElJay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2013, 10:03 AM   #20
Beryl
Registered User
 
Beryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianric View Post
I've always had high speed internet when it first became available. I consider the internet a necessity. I'm a volunteer photographer for various charities and upload to Facebook and Fickr the various events I shoot. I also do online banking, order my prescriptions, do my taxes, and bypass USPS. Cable TV I could live without.
For this reason, IMO, high speed Internet should be like any other utility -- readily available for reasonable prices. From CASA training, I'm told that Comcast and maybe others offer Internet at extremely low prices for those who can't otherwise afford it. That way, the kiddos in foster homes can have access.

EBS info is available OTA so Cable TV is not a necessity, IMO.
__________________
HD XL
Premiere
Beryl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2013, 04:03 PM   #21
pdhenry
Every Day's Saturday
 
pdhenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 11,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal_Killer View Post
Are you people sure you will be saving money by reducing your cable TV subscription bill?

I also have limited basic with Comcrap and do most of my viewing from many of the sources mentioned above plus others.

But my total cable bill is no where near $11. In fact, it is only slightly lower than it was when I had everything.

Why? Because while my cable TV bill is low, my cable Internet bill is sky high and you need good quality internet (high speed) to receive good quality shows.
You don't need the higher tier speeds. I have "Performance" (recently upgraded to 25 Mbps) and it's more than I need; 12 Mbps was fine in the past. That plus limited basic and HBO is around $68; when I had everything plus HBO it was over $150. I agree that "Starter" level Internet speed (3 Mbps, IIRC) might not be adequate.
pdhenry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 07:50 AM   #22
Steveknj
Lost in New Joisey
 
Steveknj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 34,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post
While that is a well constructed logic, I would ask how is it working for them.
Clearly advertisers invest in TV vehicles that will reach their intended audiences. They are failing dramatically at the lower age range.
Look at Agents of Shield, its ratings are dropping fast.

The charts above show that the ROI is pretty poor.

Do you invest your money on the fringes and the smaller markets?
Exactly. While it's a lot harder to get those in 18-49 range, simply they aren't watching as much TV and in many cases, they aren't watching traditional network TV at all (especially in the 18-30 range.) I read an interesting article on the decline of "catch phrases" in advertising and in interviews, under 25s are seriously cutting the cord from traditional TV. In one interview, they spoke to young 20s woman who talked about how she and her friends don't watch much TV at all, and when they are watching something, they are watching, Neflix or Amazon video or something else streaming. They almost NEVER watch commercials. So are the advertisers chasing something that will never come there way? Are they spending a LOT of money trying to perk the interest of someone who's not remotely interested or is simply tuning out? Would it be better to direct that money to online advertising? And, with the advent of the DVR, is traditional advertising, dying if not completely dead? I really think the age brackets probably need better refinement (and maybe when the number come in they ARE looking at this closer than simply 18-49 only matters). As mentioned, it's cheaper to reach those above 50 during the day, but are over 50s really home during the day anymore than 18-49s? Certainly over 65s probably are, but 50-65? I doubt it. They work too, and the work force could be getting older. And under 30s? Are they hard to reach or impossible to reach? I'm thinking the sweet spot for advertisers these days are probably 30-60, not 18-49 on traditional TV.
__________________
Annoying Blurb
Steveknj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 07:57 AM   #23
Steveknj
Lost in New Joisey
 
Steveknj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 34,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenry View Post
You don't need the higher tier speeds. I have "Performance" (recently upgraded to 25 Mbps) and it's more than I need; 12 Mbps was fine in the past. That plus limited basic and HBO is around $68; when I had everything plus HBO it was over $150. I agree that "Starter" level Internet speed (3 Mbps, IIRC) might not be adequate.
I'm getting about 17 mbbs down now on my lower tier Optimum Online cable broadband. I can't remember the last time I had a glitch streaming anything, either via Roku or my Sony BluRay player, or wherever. Those days are in the past. As long as the source has decent throughput (i.e. Netflix or Amazon or wherever the content is coming from) there, no glitches. Smooth as silk. I get more glitches streaming through devices that are not dedicated for streaming, such as through my iPad or phone (which is LTE Verizon, or WiFi). But even that is a LOT better than it used to be. I think it is now a viable option to cut the cord if the content / price is not acceptable via your content provider. For me, if it weren't for sports, I'd definitely consider it.
__________________
Annoying Blurb
Steveknj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |