DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Bruce]

I wonder how many of them died?

I'm being serious here - hardly anyone under 30 gets cable/satellite, but the older you go the higher the market penetration. People who have had traditional TV since the 50s and 60s are by far the least likely to cut the cord - and if they do it may be to not have TV at all rather than to go streaming.

So if you look at numbers today and compare to numbers a decade ago, you have to account for how many households ended their subscription to cable/satellite because the people who made it up are no longer with us, versus how many new households have been created with people who are now in the 20s or early 30s and didn't "cut the cord" because they never have personally subscribed to cable/satellite and never will.

Our population increase has been pretty consistent the last 30 years, roughly, 4 Million are born, 2.5 million die, every year.

And you are correct, I would assume a lot of older customers have passed away, but that helps illustrates the problem and it is much worse, we are now losing 2 million subs a quarter, it will hit 8 million this year, if only 2.5 million die, then who are the remaining 5.5 million that will leave this year, the newest demo of those leaving is that over 40 under 60 group, those that grew up with Cable TV and find no need to keep it anymore.

And these number of folks passing away are individuals, the numbers of those leaving are Households, for example just because someone’s wife passed away does not mean the Husband is canceling Cable, so that reduces the number of those who left Pay Live TV because of death, to figure that out will take a lot more research which I do not wish to do.

Then of course the younger folks ( 4 billion born every year), it is too late for them, like my kids, they are being raised with the likes of Netflix, You Tube, etc.

They will never subscribe to Cable TV, the under 30 group finds no need, my kids are 32 and 27, they only have the likes of Netflix at their Homes.

 

[Juan]

Our population increase has been pretty consistent the last 30 years, roughly, 4 Million are born, 2.5 million die, every year.

And you are correct, I would assume a lot of older customers have passed away, but that helps illustrates the problem and it is much worse, we are now losing 2 million subs a quarter, it will hit 8 million this year, if only 2.5 million die, then who are the remaining 5.5 million that will leave this year, the newest demo of those leaving is that over 40 under 60 group, those that grew up with Cable TV and find no need to keep it anymore.

And these number of folks passing away are individuals, the numbers of those leaving are Households, for example just because someone’s wife passed away does not mean the Husband is canceling Cable, so that reduces the number of those who left Pay Live TV because of death, to figure that out will take a lot more research which I do not wish to do.

Then of course the younger folks ( 4 billion born every year), it is too late for them, like my kids, they are being raised with the likes of Netflix, You Tube, etc.

They will never subscribe to Cable TV, the under 30 group finds no need, my kids are 32 and 27, they only have the likes of Netflix at their Homes.

But they will subscribe to hulu or youtube tv..which is the same thing

 

[cosmo_kramer]

View: https://twitter.com/jimmytraina/status/1585664242132328448?s=46&t=HeLTXPgxqWp9nMA4ZSjzmg

 

[Bruce]

But they will subscribe to hulu or youtube tv..which is the same thing

Already gave those numbers, 68 Million subscribe to Live Paid TV, which includes YTTV, Hulu Live, etc as of now.

in 2014, before the start of the downturn in 2015, there was 100 Million that subscribe to paid Live TV, before there was OTT Live TV ( I believe Playstation Vue was the first in 2015).

That means 32 million are gone.

 

[Juan]

Already gave those numbers, 68 Million subscribe to Live Paid TV, which includes YTTV, Hulu Live, etc as of now.

in 2014, before the start of the downturn in 2015, there was 100 Million that subscribe to paid Live TV, before there was OTT Live TV ( I believe Playstation Vue was the first in 2015).

That means 32 million are gone.

And they are supposed to magically reappear if cable and satellite disappear?... if anything sub numbers will continue to drop sharply if they move to internet from satellite..could be the death of the traditional content providers..especially when hardly anybody is making a profit with streaming

 

[Bruce]

And they are supposed to magically reappear if cable and satellite disappear?

What do you mean reappear, all the streaming services have gone up in subscribers during the same timeframe they have gotten less for Traditional Provers, the only one that showed a loss was Netflix this year in the first two quarters, but gained them back in the 3rd with a million extra.

.. if anything sub numbers will continue to drop sharply if they move to internet from satellite

Yes those leaving Traditional Providers will increase, thanks for agreeing with me.

..could be the death of the traditional content providers..especially when hardly anybody is making a profit with streaming

Takes time to make a profit, true for any business, Amazon was not profitable at first, Apple either, Netflix, even DirecTV .

Right now they are focused on building content, remember most of these streaming services have only been out for a few years.

Disney+ is just now finishing it’s third year for example.

 

[Bruce]

Yes, the death of “cable” has been predicted for a decade. Ain’t happening.

Yes it is happening, all Traditional Providers are dying a slow death as far as providing Live TV.

The newest to report is Comcast-

Comcast’s cable TV subscriber losses accelerated for the third quarter in a row in 2022, with the operator shedding 561,000 in Q3 across business and residential customers, while streaming service Peacock saw growth.

Residential video subscribers declined by 540,000 in the period – more than the 484,000 and 497,000 it lost in Q1 and Q2, respectively. It's also significantly more than the 382,000 net residential video subs Comcast lost in the third quarter of 2021. Its residential video customer base now stands at about 15.97 million.

https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/comcast-loses-561k-cable-subs-peacock-grows-15m

Add the Verizon Fios losses of 95,000 ( they have lost 259,000 in 3 quarters of 2022, lost 221,-00 in all of 2021). with only 2 Providers reporting, already have a loss of 656,000 in Q3.

Do you not notice that the losses are accelerating and will continue to get worse, we are in a transition period to getting all video via the internet, my guess 5-7 years before it is completed.

 

[SamCdbs]

This has been explained. You just don’t like the explanation. EVERYONE who wants streaming only has done that. The bubble is exactly where it is.

And, no, it doesn’t “take time to make money”. It takes a plan. Streaming, with FAR lower distribution costs than either OTA broadcasting, DBS, or cable TV, simply has no plan to make money. Simply put it pays more for content than it takes in. That isn’t changing.

Rather they seem to be embarking on a path that includes more and more high $$ melodrama whose ratings, if you can find them, show how low in the public consciousness any one particular of these shows are.

And high high high $$ ventures into sports. Which takes two forms. One is the Disney model. The original idea was to just take unwanted material and toss up semi-amateur productions. For example, ESPN owns the entire right to most college conference, so a student produced MAC basketball game or a student produced SEC women’s tennis match get tossed up, along with international sports and reruns. Didn’t work, so they had to go out and buy third tier material from the PGA, NHL and others. Still can’t make a $.

Or the Amazon/Apple model, which is to toss in sports on top of everything else. Still can’t make a $.

Where is the plan to change this? All I see is 8 to 10 bills to get less material than cable/DBS provided for less money, and at a profit. Meanwhile the non sports fan still gets to pay for sports they don’t want, just like cable/DBS and the cheap get higher and higher bills (and more of them), which those are streaming only’s natural customer base.

Meanwhile, back at ST, it seems that the collapse of TNF ratings are outlining just how much money the NFL wants them to lose on this, and how little back side (new subscribers and retained subscribers, which is how DirecTV used ST) there is to be gained.

 

[Bilbo1]

This has been explained. You just don’t like the explanation. EVERYONE who wants streaming only has done that. The bubble is exactly where it is.

I’m not going to reply point by point, but in general…

You believe that there is content available through DBS/cable that isn’t available via streaming… I challenge you to find a show on linear cable that isn’t available by streaming. Moreover, it’s available anytime you want to watch it. Streaming is a DVR on steroids. Unlimited capacity.

Rating are likely not a good measure, particularly if they only consider a particular time window. This was an issue for DVR and even the old VHS days, but for a show that is release at Thursday at 0500 UTC (midnight EST), people are going to watch it over the next few weeks. I have an episode of Andor and a couple of other shows that I need to catch up on. We’ve been watching Bad Sisters, but can only squeeze in an episode here and there, so how does that show up in your precious rating?

As for sports, my daughter played D2 lacrosse (2013-2017). I paid $25 a season to be able to stream her games. I wish her games were available on ESPN+. Sports are very diverse, and people choose which sport to watch for a variety of reasons. Streaming has the potential to open up a vast range of sports to people. If you are following D2 women’s college lacrosse, you really don’t care how amateurish the production is. I would hope the college is using the platform to train future production crews for their professional life.

Does anyone seriously believe that Amazon bought TNF for it to be profitable year 1? And, how do you gauge profitability? Amazon is getting data on who watches TNF. If you just tuned into last night’s Tampa Baltimore game, they might figure you have a tie to one of those cuties. That is worth something to them. Amazon is going yo do what Amazon does best… figure out how to monetize TNF. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an internet delivered service that was profitable day 1. Many came and went.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with this… over the years, we’ve seen a number of carriage disputes between cable/DBS and content providers. I’ve long thought that both sides wanted out of this business. Terrestrial networks (cable/telecos) can deliver data, just bits, for as much or more $$$ than they can deliver TV service, without the cost of providing content. Content providers can get more money selling Direct to consumers, and tailor content appropriately. No one is going to miss negotiating carriage agreements.

This is a one way move. People are leaving cable/satellite for streaming in droves. They aren’t going back.

 

[Bruce]

This has been explained. You just don’t like the explanation. EVERYONE who wants streaming only has done that. The bubble is exactly where it is.

Then why is the number for those leaving Traditional Providers growing?

Where are they going, it is not to the Live OTT services as the number of their subscribers is far less then those who have left Cable/Sat. TV.

And, no, it doesn’t “take time to make money”. It takes a plan. Streaming, with FAR lower distribution costs than either OTA broadcasting, DBS, or cable TV, simply has no plan to make money. Simply put it pays more for content than it takes in. That isn’t changing.

They have a much bigger distribution then Live TV here in the States, worldwide.

Rather they seem to be embarking on a path that includes more and more high $$ melodrama whose ratings, if you can find them, show how low in the public consciousness any one particular of these shows are.

Those melodramas get a much higher number of viewers then you give them credit for, the Sandman viewers was over 30 million people as of now, Stranger Things is way more, etc, etc.

That of course does not mean everything streaming has is a hit, plenty of shows have failed, same for Broadcast/Cable shows, plenty of sports gets good and bad ratings.

And high high high $$ ventures into sports. Which takes two forms. One is the Disney model. The original idea was to just take unwanted material and toss up semi-amateur productions. For example, ESPN owns the entire right to most college conference, so a student produced MAC basketball game or a student produced SEC women’s tennis match get tossed up, along with international sports and reruns. Didn’t work, so they had to go out and buy third tier material from the PGA, NHL and others. Still can’t make a $.

NHL is third class?
And as usual, you do not bring up the fact that ESPN+ has MLB and some NFL games, like this Sunday for example.
Amazed you think of the NFL as 3rd class.

Or the Amazon/Apple model, which is to toss in sports on top of everything else. Still can’t make a $.

Both Apple and Amazon revenue was up in the 3rd quarter, just reported.

Where is the plan to change this? All I see is 8 to 10 bills to get less material than cable/DBS provided for less money, and at a profit.

Ok, here we go again, I get tons more content then just having a Traditional Provider-
All of these are commercial free except ESPN+, also rounding the price
Hulu Bundle with Disney+ and ESPN+ ( which includes all shows from Fox, ABC, FX, NAT GEO, etc)-$20 a month or $240 a year
Paramount+ with Showtime (CBS and all Viacom)-$130 a year
Peacock-(NBC and all Universal like SyFy for example)-$50 a year
HBOMAX-$150 a year
AMC+-$30 a year
NETFLIX-$240 a year
MLB-$70 a year ( if you wait until Father’s Day the plan goes on sale).

So a total of $910, divided by 12 months makes my bill $75 a month, a lot less then the average DirecTV bill and then I get all the exclusive content along with all the content on those channels on Traditional Live TV.

Then of course all the free stuff on Pluto, Tubi, the reruns that people with Live TV have to pay for.

Meanwhile, back at ST, it seems that the collapse of TNF ratings are outlining just how much money the NFL wants them to lose on this, and how little back side (new subscribers and retained subscribers, which is how DirecTV used ST) there is to be gained.

When the deal is signed with whoever then we can go over if it was good business or not, until then it is a moot point.

The only fact we know is DirecTV did not bid on it since they have lost so many subscribers and it did not make business sense for them.

Streaming is growing, so it does make sense for them to acquire it.

 

[SamCdbs]

I challenge you to find a show on linear cable that isn’t available by streaming.

Challenge accepted. What is on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, SECN, ACCN, LHN, FS1, FS2, BTN, GC, etc, etc, etc.

I could go on. But this is a sports thread, and the simple fact is the wonderment and depth of sports is ONLY found on linear ESPN and its competitors. ONLY.

What do I win?

Rating are likely not a good measure,

Then what is? Ratings is how the TV business works.

It is hard to get ratings from streaming. Mostly it takes some math and some digging. Mostly they release, if they release anything, “minutes watched”. So you have to take the length of the show and do some math and some extrapolation. When you do, you come up with, in a nation of over 330M, shows that relative handfuls of people are watching. For which they are paying more and more $$.

squeeze in an episode here and there, so how does that show up in your precious rating?

It doesn’t because they, except for Amazon and TNF, which I am sure they regret now, won’t simply announce how many unique views (the ratings) each show actually has.

If you are following D2 women’s college lacrosse, you really don’t care how amateurish the production is.

Which is why most people watch major sports, the ones found on the profitable channels like ESPN, not the ones found on money losers like ESPN+.

And, how do you gauge profitability?

Profit is what you make after costs. To be more fair relative to TNF, it would be the number of new subscribers to Prime who got it because football, which that number seems to be actual zero plus the ad revenue, which the ratings teach us is tiny and wasn’t going to feed anybody anyway.

This is a losing venture. As are almost all streaming ventures.

 

[Juan]

What do you mean reappear, all the streaming services have gone up in subscribers during the same timeframe they have gotten less for Traditional Provers, the only one that showed a loss was Netflix this year in the first two quarters, but gained them back in the 3rd with a million extra. Yes those leaving Traditional Providers will increase, thanks for agreeing with me. Takes time to make a profit, true for any business, Amazon was not profitable at first, Apple either, Netflix, even DirecTV . Right now they are focused on building content, remember most of these streaming services have only been out for a few years. Disney+ is just now finishing it’s third year for example.

No Your are going to exclude a large part of the population with streaming...sub numbers will decrease drastically..

What do you mean reappear, all the streaming services have gone up in subscribers during the same timeframe they have gotten less for Traditional Provers, the only one that showed a loss was Netflix this year in the first two quarters, but gained them back in the 3rd with a million extra. Yes those leaving Traditional Providers will increase, thanks for agreeing with me. Takes time to make a profit, true for any business, Amazon was not profitable at first, Apple either, Netflix, even DirecTV .ully Right now they are focused on building content, remember most of these streaming services have only been out for a few years. Disney+ is just now finishing it’s third year for example.

Act

I’m not going to reply point by point, but in general…

You believe that there is content available through DBS/cable that isn’t available via streaming… I challenge you to find a show on linear cable that isn’t available by streaming. Moreover, it’s available anytime you want to watch it. Streaming is a DVR on steroids. Unlimited capacity.

Rating are likely not a good measure, particularly if they only consider a particular time window. This was an issue for DVR and even the old VHS days, but for a show that is release at Thursday at 0500 UTC (midnight EST), people are going to watch it over the next few weeks. I have an episode of Andor and a couple of other shows that I need to catch up on. We’ve been watching Bad Sisters, but can only squeeze in an episode here and there, so how does that show up in your precious rating?

As for sports, my daughter played D2 lacrosse (2013-2017). I paid $25 a season to be able to stream her games. I wish her games were available on ESPN+. Sports are very diverse, and people choose which sport to watch for a variety of reasons. Streaming has the potential to open up a vast range of sports to people. If you are following D2 women’s college lacrosse, you really don’t care how amateurish the production is. I would hope the college is using the platform to train future production crews for their professional life.

Does anyone seriously believe that Amazon bought TNF for it to be profitable year 1? And, how do you gauge profitability? Amazon is getting data on who watches TNF. If you just tuned into last night’s Tampa Baltimore game, they might figure you have a tie to one of those cuties. That is worth something to them. Amazon is going yo do what Amazon does best… figure out how to monetize TNF. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an internet delivered service that was profitable day 1. Many came and went.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with this… over the years, we’ve seen a number of carriage disputes between cable/DBS and content providers. I’ve long thought that both sides wanted out of this business. Terrestrial networks (cable/telecos) can deliver data, just bits, for as much or more $$$ than they can deliver TV service, without the cost of providing content. Content providers can get more money selling Direct to consumers, and tailor content appropriately. No one is going to miss negotiating carriage agreements.

This is a one way move. People are leaving cable/satellite for streaming in droves. They aren’t going back.

Local news in small markets

 

[Juan]

Then why is the number for those leaving Traditional Providers growing?

Where are they going, it is not to the Live OTT services as the number of their subscribers is far less then those who have left Cable/Sat. TV.

They have a much bigger distribution then Live TV here in the States, worldwide.

Those melodramas get a much higher number of viewers then you give them credit for, the Sandman viewers was over 30 million people as of now, Stranger Things is way more, etc, etc.

That of course does not mean everything streaming has is a hit, plenty of shows have failed, same for Broadcast/Cable shows, plenty of sports gets good and bad ratings.

NHL is third class?
And as usual, you do not bring up the fact that ESPN+ has MLB and some NFL games, like this Sunday for example.
Amazed you think of the NFL as 3rd class.

Both Apple and Amazon revenue was up in the 3rd quarter, just reported.

Ok, here we go again, I get tons more content then just having a Traditional Provider-
All of these are commercial free except ESPN+, also rounding the price
Hulu Bundle with Disney+ and ESPN+ ( which includes all shows from Fox, ABC, FX, NAT GEO, etc)-$20 a month or $240 a year
Paramount+ with Showtime (CBS and all Viacom)-$130 a year
Peacock-(NBC and all Universal like SyFy for example)-$50 a year
HBOMAX-$150 a year
AMC+-$30 a year
NETFLIX-$240 a year
MLB-$70 a year ( if you wait until Father’s Day the plan goes on sale).

So a total of $910, divided by 12 months makes my bill $75 a month, a lot less then the average DirecTV bill and then I get all the exclusive content along with all the content on those channels on Traditional Live TV.

Then of course all the free stuff on Pluto, Tubi, the reruns that people with Live TV have to pay for.

When the deal is signed with whoever then we can go over if it was good business or not, until then it is a moot point.

The only fact we know is DirecTV did not bid on it since they have lost so many subscribers and it did not make business sense for them.

Streaming is growing, so it does make sense for them to acquire it.

No..a price higher than what they currently are paying made no sense to them

 

[Bilbo1]

Challenge accepted. What is on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, SECN, ACCN, LHN, FS1, FS2, BTN, GC, etc, etc, etc.

Nope. All are available to be streamed. Ok, you currently need authentication through a cable provider, but those shows are available to stream.

Then what is? Ratings is how the TV business works.

It is hard to get ratings from streaming.

Wasn’t that what I said?

Profit is what you make after costs. To be more fair relative to TNF, it would be the number of new subscribers to Prime who got it because football, which that number seems to be actual zero plus the ad revenue, which the ratings teach us is tiny and wasn’t going to feed anybody anyway.

Amazon, Google and most internet companies are pretty good at getting ad revenue. Impressions on a web page, directing people to products based on searches, etc. They haven’t been good at selling ads in streamed shows, but they are getting better. Far fewer “moments of zen” on YouTube TV now compared to two years ago. Of course, they can also use data on what you watch to pick personalized ads in the streamed show or on your web pages, too. The money doesn’t just come from static ads during the shows like linear TV’s did.

Profitability will come. It may take some further shaking out of the industry, but it will come.

 

[Bruce]

Nope. All are available to be streamed. Ok, you currently need authentication through a cable provider, but those shows are available to stream.



Wasn’t that what I said?



Amazon, Google and most internet companies are pretty good at getting ad revenue. Impressions on a web page, directing people to products based on searches, etc. They haven’t been good at selling ads in streamed shows, but they are getting better. Far fewer “moments of zen” on YouTube TV now compared to two years ago. Of course, they can also use data on what you watch to pick personalized ads in the streamed show or on your web pages, too. The money doesn’t just come from static ads during the shows like linear TV’s did.

Profitability will come. It may take some further shaking out of the industry, but it will come.

Good response, but if you have not noticed, facts do no seem to matter here.

 

[Bruce]

No Your are going to exclude a large part of the population with streaming...sub numbers will decrease drastically

If you are writing about those in rural areas, the majority of households there do not get Satellite TV.

Time for more math-

There are about 20 Million Rural Households in the US, so if every one of them had DBS Service, that would be more subs then they have now.

I believe it is closer to 70% Urban / 30% Rural, which is only 6 million Subscribers.

Out of a Total 129 Million Households in the United States, that is only about 5%.

 

[Juan]

Nope. All are available to be streamed. Ok, you currently need authentication through a cable provider, but those shows are available to stream.



Wasn’t that what I said?



Amazon, Google and most internet companies are pretty good at getting ad revenue. Impressions on a web page, directing people to products based on searches, etc. They haven’t been good at selling ads in streamed shows, but they are getting better. Far fewer “moments of zen” on YouTube TV now compared to two years ago. Of course, they can also use data on what you watch to pick personalized ads in the streamed show or on your web pages, too. The money doesn’t just come from static ads during the shows like linear TV’s did.

Profitability will come. It may take some further shaking out of the industry, but it will come.

 

[Juan]

If you are writing about those in rural areas, the majority of households there do not get Satellite TV.

Time for more math-

There are about 20 Million Rural Households in the US, so if every one of them had DBS Service, that would be more subs then they have now.

I believe it is closer to 70% Urban / 30% Rural, which is only 6 million Subscribers.

Out of a Total 129 Million Households in the United States, that is only about 5%.

Rural is about 60 million..

 

[Bruce]

Rural is about 60 million..

Population, not Households.

From Google-An estimated 60 million people, or one-in-five residents (17.9% of the total U.S. population), live in Rural America.

Average size of a Household is 2.51, so that makes it 24 Million Households, which makes it even less people get Satellite TV in those areas.

 

[Bilbo1]

Profit is what you make after costs. To be more fair relative to TNF, it would be the number of new subscribers to Prime who got it because football, which that number seems to be actual zero plus the ad revenue, which the ratings teach us is tiny and wasn’t going to feed anybody anyway.

Traditional linear TV sold ad slots during the one or maybe two broadcasts of a show. Internet firms use data about you to put ads in places you see online. It’s a different business model that is monetized differently. Profit has to be measured in terms of all revenue generated based upon the business model, not an assumption based upon the way it’s generated in a different industry.