At what point will ESPN and other sports nets feel the effects of cord cutting?

[LKellerIII]

Sure, you have some OTA shows that get 20 shares. But a lot of them get under 5. That's the same as they'd get strictly on cable.

Mox nix, no? I'm going to guess there are a ton of cable shows with infinitesimal ratings while most prime time network shows do much better (NBC excepted perhaps).

At some point, if you restrict yourself to rabbit ears, your choices will be limited, because the costs of creating content will exceed the advertising revenues. We've already seen it on radio.

OTA TV, regardless of whether you watch through rabbit ears, cable or satt will be more restricted than the 200+ channels of cable but if you don't care about those cable channels or you watch them through other sources then it doesn't matter.

I cut my cord several years ago and the number of events/shows I missed but wanted to watch is probably less than a dozen. The rest I have been able to find elsewhere at no cost.

Do I think that will last forever? No. Do I intend to re-sign with cable? No. There is simply not enough I care to watch that is worth paying out of pocket for.

If I had to switch to OTA TV, or even an "economy" cable or satellite plan, I might as well give up watching TV entirely. The vast majority of shows i enjoy watching are on basic or premium cable. With the exception of The Good Wife and 60 Minutes, there's nothing on the "Big 4" networks that I care much about.

I increasingly depend on NPR and the internet for news - I rarely watch local TV news, or tune in independent channels to watch talk shows, judge shows, or the endless off-network reruns.

My son - who lives in an apartment without a TV or cable, downloads everything he wants to watch (mostly basic and premium cable, like me) trough Bit Torrent. Maybe I'll take that plunge someday, but I do have some qualms about downloading content 'illegally' - In the meantime, I'm stuck with either cable or satellite.

Is $150 per month too much? Yeah, I guess - but considering most of my entertainment time comes from TV, and three of us in the house are watching - the cost per hour is miniscule.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Here is another possible twist to this puzzle. Every NBA game, including the Finals will be telecasted on ESPN and not ABC.

ESPN doesn't have the room for the entire NBA schedule, what with MNF, college football and basketball, and MLB. Besides, Turner might have something to say about that.

I think Tiger 1983 meant every nationally-televised NBA game.

I thought the current ESPN/ABC deal for the NBA could allow Disney to move the NBA Sunday-afternoon and playoffs/Finals package to ESPN.

If "cord cutting" becomes rampant, I could see Disney do that, and broadcasters holding rights to other major sports events seen on over-the-air TV could likewise move them to cable networks under their ownership.

But wouldn't there be a huge uproar in Washington??

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Cable networks (especially sports networks) are probably the major reasons why some people are thinking of becoming "cord cutters".

The major increases in cable rates over the past few years has been caused almost entirely by cable networks "jacking up" the fees they charge cable and satellite operators.

These networks should try to reduce the rates they charge operators and instead tap more into advertising revenues. I suspect there is room for considerable growth in revenues cable networks can get from advertisers.

In my own opinion, commercial spots on most broadcast network shows are over-priced; while commercial spots on most cable shows are under-priced.

 

[TheBigA]

These networks should try to reduce the rates they charge operators and instead tap more into advertising revenues. I suspect there is room for considerable growth in revenues cable networks can get from advertisers.

The story in advertising for the last five years has been the flattening of ad revenues due to all the increased competition for all the platforms and all the media people consume. No one has a monopoly anymore, and that means the game for advertisers is to try and spread the same budget over more platforms. That doesn't allow for increasing ad rates.

 

[Morgan Wick]

If I had to switch to OTA TV, or even an "economy" cable or satellite plan, I might as well give up watching TV entirely. The vast majority of shows i enjoy watching are on basic or premium cable. With the exception of The Good Wife and 60 Minutes, there's nothing on the "Big 4" networks that I care much about.

And that's exactly how all the stakeholders in cable TV like it, with you needing to pay for actual quality shows. (Although given your choice of favorite shows, I suspect you're not in a demo they're going after anyway.)

 

[w9wi]

To ask a provocative question...

will, someday, TV cease to be a universal part of everyone's entertainment package?

I mean, will we see a day when a significant minority of the population simply does not watch television, however delivered? Will it be replaced, for many Americans, by interactive web content, video games or other participatory media? Or by something nobody has yet imagined?

In 1930, who would have imagined we'd see a day when few people turn on the radio after 7pm?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

will, someday, TV cease to be a universal part of everyone's entertainment package?

I mean, will we see a day when a significant minority of the population simply does not watch television, however delivered?

What does "television" mean? Is someone watching television if they watch "The Simpsons" on Hulu?
If that is watching "teleivision", then your minority is about 1 in 50 households.

If that is not "television," then we're already there. About 1 in 20 households has no means to receive traditional linear television channels. Both figures via a Nielsen report earlier this year.

 

[w9wi]

By "television", I mean however delivered, including streaming online. Including non-linear delivery of individual programs -- that's still television. (and still usually includes commercials, in some form or another)

I suppose I *wouldn't* include short-form material produced by amateurs, like most YouTube videos. Admittedly, there's a pretty fuzzy line between "long-form" and "short-form" -- and between amateur-generated and professionally-generated content.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Then I say no. A lot of people watch television not to interact, and there's a lot of stuff, like sports, where it's hard to imagine more than rudimentary interactivity. Where the future might lie is interactive elements of linear shows, such as creating your own graphics package or changing camera angles, gimmicky stuff like that.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Here is another possible twist to this puzzle. Every NBA game, including the Finals will be telecasted on ESPN and not ABC.

ESPN doesn't have the room for the entire NBA schedule, what with MNF, college football and basketball, and MLB. Besides, Turner might have something to say about that.

I think Tiger 1983 meant every nationally-televised NBA game.

I thought the current ESPN/ABC deal for the NBA could allow Disney to move the NBA Sunday-afternoon and playoffs/Finals package to ESPN.

If "cord cutting" becomes rampant, I could see Disney do that, and broadcasters holding rights to other major sports events seen on over-the-air TV could likewise move them to cable networks under their ownership.

But wouldn't there be a huge uproar in Washington??

cord cutters aren't even setting up antennas, they got everything they need from streaming

 

[KERCAlum]

To ask a provocative question...

will, someday, TV cease to be a universal part of everyone's entertainment package?

I mean, will we see a day when a significant minority of the population simply does not watch television, however delivered? Will it be replaced, for many Americans, by interactive web content, video games or other participatory media? Or by something nobody has yet imagined?

In 1930, who would have imagined we'd see a day when few people turn on the radio after 7pm?

I think someday, what we now refer to as television (the transmission of an RF or digital signal over publicly-owned airwaves, received via an antenna, intended for playback on devices intended for home reception, where no cover or admission fee is charged) will die. Video will, of course, live on in places like the internet. Some day, all of our entertainment content will be delivered wirelessly, but bandwidth and equipment limitations today make that incredibly difficult.

The days of rabbit ears and rooftop aerials are numbered. Someday, even radio will go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo (what with internet radio like iHeart, TuneIn, and rdio.com). The only RF signals being transmitted will be public service radio, wireless telephony, and SETI looking for extraterrestrials. (Maybe THAT will bring the aliens here, if they think we've died off because no more radio or TV.)

Most of our future entertainment will be more interactive than at present, as well, meaning less scripted entertainment and more "reality-based" stuff. At that point, I'll probably go back to books.

 

[KeithE4]

What does "television" mean? Is someone watching television if they watch "The Simpsons" on Hulu?
If that is watching "teleivision", then your minority is about 1 in 50 households.

If that is not "television," then we're already there. About 1 in 20 households has no means to receive traditional linear television channels. Both figures via a Nielsen report earlier this year.

"Televisions," in the traditional sense (analog circuitry with a cathode ray tube for a display), no longer exist for the most part. The devices that are able to receive TV broadcasts today are high-resolution computer monitors with digital and (for now) analog RF tuners built in.

No "televisions" are being manufactured anymore, and the ones still in use require a converter of some type (or cable, if your system still offers analog channels) to operate. With a few exceptions - LPTVs and translators - NTSC television is as dead as the Nipkow disk, and neither are coming back.

 

[KeithE4]

Here is another possible twist to this puzzle. Every NBA game, including the Finals will be telecasted on ESPN and not ABC.

ESPN doesn't have the room for the entire NBA schedule, what with MNF, college football and basketball, and MLB. Besides, Turner might have something to say about that.

I think Tiger 1983 meant every nationally-televised NBA game.

I know what he meant. ESPN doesn't have the room for their own games plus those currently on TNT. They could move games from ABC maybe, but IIRC the league wants those and the Finals to stay over the air.

I thought the current ESPN/ABC deal for the NBA could allow Disney to move the NBA Sunday-afternoon and playoffs/Finals package to ESPN.

If "cord cutting" becomes rampant, I could see Disney do that, and broadcasters holding rights to other major sports events seen on over-the-air TV could likewise move them to cable networks under their ownership.

If cord cutting becomes rampant, ESPN will no longer be watched by those people, unless they expand WatchESPN to include non-cable viewers (AFAIK, it is also not available to Dish or DirecTV subscribers). Why would they move programming to channels that would be watched less than they are now, should more viewers disconnect their cable?

But wouldn't there be a huge uproar in Washington??

Only because politicians like to stick their noses into areas where they have no authority. The FCC doesn't regulate networks, and this is not an anti-trust issue.

 

[landtuna]

"Televisions," in the traditional sense (analog circuitry with a cathode ray tube for a display), no longer exist for the most part. The devices that are able to receive TV broadcasts today are high-resolution computer monitors with digital and (for now) analog RF tuners built in.

Technically a "monitor" is a digital visual display device with no tuning capability. A "television" is a visual display and audio device which can be analog and/or digital and has one or more tuners to receive RF signals. Both can have additional inputs which are other than RF. Some of those devices are both TV receivers and monitors.

In common use "television" has come to mean visual programming transmitted over terrestrial RF, cable or satellite to the receiver (which could be traditional television, computers with TV receiver circuitry and mobile devices capable of video reception).

Analog televisions without CRT's have been around since the 80's. No longer being manufactured but still working perfectly and has the best audio I've ever heard from a "television".

 

[landtuna]

cord cutters aren't even setting up antennas, they got everything they need from streaming

This is one cord cutter who did set up antennas - for a couple reasons:

Wifey lives by her DVR which records shows in their native format so full HD displays beautifully on our 60" HDTV and sound can be routed through our surround sound system. As good as my computer is it cannot duplicate the big screen or surround sound experience.

Not all programming, especially repeats, are available online and/or streaming.

 

[KeithE4]

"Televisions," in the traditional sense (analog circuitry with a cathode ray tube for a display), no longer exist for the most part. The devices that are able to receive TV broadcasts today are high-resolution computer monitors with digital and (for now) analog RF tuners built in.

Technically a "monitor" is a digital visual display device with no tuning capability. A "television" is a visual display and audio device which can be analog and/or digital and has one or more tuners to receive RF signals. Both can have additional inputs which are other than RF. Some of those devices are both TV receivers and monitors.

Yes, to a point. My last analog TVs had audio/video inputs as well as a tuner. But since they couldn't display anything other than NTSC 525-line video, they couldn't really be called "monitors" by even the standards of the '90s, when 800x600 SVGA was the norm.

In common use "television" has come to mean visual programming transmitted over terrestrial RF, cable or satellite to the receiver (which could be traditional television, computers with TV receiver circuitry and mobile devices capable of video reception).

Analog televisions without CRT's have been around since the 80's. No longer being manufactured but still working perfectly and has the best audio I've ever heard from a "television".

Even the NTSC flat-screen sets of old used CRTs - either high-powered projection tubes or ones with the "guts" on the side rather than in the rear of the tube. Only toward the end did they start using LCDs on analog sets, and they became obsolete quickly.

 

[LKellerIII]

Most of our future entertainment will be more interactive than at present, as well, meaning less scripted entertainment and more "reality-based" stuff. At that point, I'll probably go back to books.

You and me both. It's hard to imagine scripted entertainment dwindling. I hope you're wrong. To use the book analogy: novels are more popular than non-fiction. It's really a golden age of scripted TV now, with basic and premium cable competing with the traditional networks to turn out high-quality scripted comedies and dramas. I would hate to see that end, though I realize in a DVR-centric world where people can skip commercials, the current business model may become obsolete, making scripted fare too expensive to produce for TV.

 

[landtuna]

Even the NTSC flat-screen sets of old used CRTs - either high-powered projection tubes or ones with the "guts" on the side rather than in the rear of the tube. Only toward the end did they start using LCDs on analog sets, and they became obsolete quickly.

Mine is a rear-projection unit with three colored lamps. No CRT's. Original lamps are still working.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Scripted TV may only be for 1%ers in 20 years

 

[LKellerIII]

Scripted TV may only be for 1%ers in 20 years

Maybe you were speaking tongue-in-cheek, but that's not likely. There aren't enough 1%ers in America to finance big scripted productions unless they were willing to pay a few hundred dollars per view, and in my experience, the wealthy can be just as cheap as the middle class when it comes to spending. $100,000 or more for a luxury car - no problem, but $200 to see Breaking Bad, or whatever - "outrageous."

More likely, these dramas will be exclusively on the premium channels - HBO, Showtime, and the like. They don't run commercials, so they're immune to the revenue-killing effects of the DVR. As far as I know, their business model seems to be working.

If anything is hurting them now, it's the wealth of top-notch dramas on basic cable - Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Americans, Sons of Anarchy etc. But if AMC and FX will someday be unable to afford such productions, it will be the premium channels that benefit.