Nielsen Finally Realizes That TV Viewers Are Cord Cutting, Calls It 'Interesting Consumer Behavior'

from the we-want-to-keep-an-eye-on-it dept

Wed, Mar 13th 2013 7:57am — Mike Masnick

For many years we've written stories about the TV industry being in complete denial over cord cutting (i.e., getting rid of pay TV). The industry has denied that anyone was doing this, claimed that it was just a minor blip during a recession, suggested that when kids "grew up" they'd go back to subscribing to cable, and used a variety of other means of perpetuating their denial. Instrumental in this has been Nielsen, the TV rankings people, who is closely aligned with the industry in propping up the facade. So it's pretty hilarious to watch Nielsen start to finally acknowledge that cord cutting is real, but to do so (1) so late into the game and (2) in such a condescending manner, that's clearly designed to blast out the message to TV execs (i.e., Nielsen's clients): "DON'T WORRY, EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE. REALLY."

It's true. Most people watch TV in their living rooms using traditional cable or satellite options. In fact, more than 95 percent of Americans get their information and entertainment that way. But as we explored what the other 5 percent are doing, we found some interesting consumer behaviors that we want to keep an eye on.

They treat it like they've discovered a brand new species, Contentus Withoutus, and it exhibits "interesting behaviors" which "we want to keep an eye on." Interesting behaviors like... not paying $100+ per month for pay TV just so they can watch two channels? Perhaps.

This small group of video enthusiasts is tuning out traditional TV — and the trend is growing. This "Zero-TV" group, which makes up less than 5 percent of U.S. households, has bucked tradition by opting to get the information they need and want from non-traditional TV devices and services.

And there, right there, is the actual admission that those of us who have cut the cord and have no intention of going back are not a myth and are actually "growing" in numbers. Still, they describe us as having "bucked the tradition" rather than being part of a larger trend that is accelerating rapidly.

From there, the focus is on how those of us who cut the cord, still watch TV (i.e., "breathe, Mr. TV exec, they don't all just hang out on Reddit talking to each other each day").

According to Nielsen's Fourth-Quarter 2012 Cross-Platform Report, the U.S. had more than five million Zero-TV households in 2013, up from just over 2 million in 2007. These households don't fit Nielsen's traditional definition of a TV household, but they still view video content. The television itself isn't obsolete, however, as more than 75 percent of these homes still have at least one TV set, which they use to watch DVDs, play games or surf the Net. When it comes to video content, a growing amount of these households are using other devices.

All in all it's a small admission, done in a condescending way in which they pretend this is some strange abnormal behavior, which needs to be observed but shouldn't worry TV execs yet. This, by the way, is classic bad advice for those facing disruptive changing markets. "Oh, don't worry about those people who have found something better and who are dropping your service in six figure chunks each quarter. We'll just observe them and be ready to act later."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cord cutting, myths
Companies: nielsen

148 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:13am

It's far more worse then Nielson tries to make it look.

There's others, like me, who watch the free over the air channels like CBS, NBC, etc, but would NEVER pay even $1 for cable or satellite channels.

I'm sure that number is far higher then the 'pitiful' 5% Nielsen acts like is no real threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  We don't pay for cable or satellite either. Any time we get questioned by phone or in the mall about switching to cable/satellite with the question, "How much to you pay for cable/satellite right now?" When you tell them zero the salesperson is dumbfounded. "What price would you pay for cable?" the ask. "The same price I am paying now," I reply. "Well we can't do that....Have a good day."
  
  I would agree that the 5% number must be low. I think they are conflating two types of people for misdirection. 5% of households fit their definition of "Zero-TV". They never mention the percentage that still have TVs but no cable/satellite subscription, nor how those are changing. But if the number of people who have actually chucked their TV has doubled in six years...I could see cord cutters also increasing. Plus the new consumers moving out on their own into college or post graduation are used to doing things without subscriptions. There will be a vacuum.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Just as ditching landline phones it is also a question of convenience: If you have no tv when you move away from your parents, why should you use $1000 on a TV and a landline phone + $120 each month on it, when you can get everything on better and far more universally useful technology like a computer and a cellphone at about the same total price?
    They live on forced subscription and on the availability of tv and landline in the places the young people move to.
    
    I am too old to be a true cord-cutter and to live cheap I have to pay for tv to get as cheap an internet-connection as I get (yes it is cheaper than internet alone because it is a package deal for the area!). However, I don't use my tv very often (it is 5 months since I last turned it on!) and I do not have a landline so an "interesting consumer behaviour" I express.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      However, I don't use my tv very often (it is 5 months since I last turned it on!) and I do not have a landline so an "interesting consumer behaviour" I express.
      
      I was having the same problem. I only turned it on for background noise while working on the computer or doing the dishes or other things, and I quickly realized my $92 I was spending on cable was really being a waste. After all, I could play a DVD which cost $15 once instead of $92 compounded over time. I cut the cable out and only had internet (which caused my internet cost to increase by $10, unbundled,) but I'd move to another ISP (come on Google Fiber,) in a heartbeat given the number of times in the last two weeks my internet has gone down due to unscheduled maintenance or problems (they always seem to want to upsell you to business class internet when you call about their crappy uptime, don't they?)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AndyD273 (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    If I get called by the cable tv company about adding TV I just say "Well, we might be interested, but I only want these 4 channels."
    Which usually ends the conversation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anonymous coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nielsen also measures OTA viewers, and the OTA-only percentage is about 19%, up from 12% in 2009. The digital-TV transition has been wonderful for those of us who live in areas with many channels.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAC Attack, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:05am
  
  Re:
  You're lost fool, Nielsen has thousands of homes like yours. The Zero TV status means a home did not receive over the air channels(like yours) or cable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  If it's 5%, it's because they're not including people who want to cut, but can't because there is the one show that they have to watch and is only on TV.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    And the people who have cable because the cable+internet package is cheaper then internet alone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Libby Stack, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: Broadcast stations
  I ditched it in 1994 and no regrets. And yes, I watch broadcast networks mainly. I can get enough excerpts from Food Network and some others I like off youtube.
  
  And another segment that I rarely see mentioned - senior citizens that just simply can't afford it any longer. There are many in my own neighborhhod.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:28am
  
  Re:
  You do know that Nielson was tracking none cable well before it's use, yes? You're even more of a dinosaur
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re:
  But the 5% don't watch NBC, CBS, etc over TV
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 29 May 2013 @ 7:36pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 13th, 2013 @ 8:13am
  I went to antenna to save $100+//month on garbage TV that is Comcast cable. I watched very little and my kids adapted very quickly to the basics. Funny thing is most of the 50+ Chicago air stations are better HD picture than cable and many of the stations are "pay" in the form of public Tv funded by tax dollars. I find those stations pretty good now.
  
  No more cable!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:19am

More than doubled in 4 years
Any bets on what it will be 4 years from now? I'm guessing at least 20% or more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: More than doubled in 4 years
  6% according to them....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Emilio, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: More than doubled in 4 years
  The longer they (the content providers) are living in their fool's paradise, the better. Once they finally accept what's happened, the faster they'll find a way to shove in-program ads down the throats of Netflix et. all. I remember back when cable was still trying to achieve wide-spread penetration into non-cable households. One of the primary selling points was "add-free television". The selling proposition was "It's worth paying for television without all the ads". That, of course is now a forgotten relic: you pay AND you get the ads anyway. With cord-cutting and making due with Netflix Watch Now's catalogue of content, we're temporarily back to "It's worth paying to not have the ads". As soon as Hollywood/Big Cable finally wake up, that ad-free Nirvana will vanish, just as it did 20 years ago...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re: More than doubled in 4 years
    And my Netflix subscription will vanish along with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:20am

If only these multinational corporations were as smart and as sophisticated as you, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  You've already lost. To succeed, You have to eliminate bias in your reasoning. bye-bye, legacy player.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Another AC, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  Sarcasm Meter: Inconclusive
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:20am

As a proud member of the 5% all I can say is how wonderful it is to almost never see a commercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  And it of course begs the question: How does your household (and Masnick's) watch TV shows?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:38am
    
    Re:
    Over the air (OTA) and Netflix.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Netflix, no commercials, 3rd season of archer was released just recently. So what if their on their 4th season right now, the effort it takes to watch the shows I want, when I want, and where I want is so trivial, that they need a much better incentive for me than 'being behind' other people in MY entertainment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Colin, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      3rd season of archer was released just recently.
      
      This article was totally worth it if only for this line of this comment. Thanks for the heads up!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Alaina, 14 Mar 2013 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For the same price as Netflix streaming ($7.99/mo), you can get Archer (and a ton of other shows) during its current season on Hulu+. After I caught up with Netflix, I switched to Hulu+ and have never gone back since I don't watch too many movies anyway. Of course I just torrent the shows Hulu doesn't have. I haven't had cable in about 4 years. Instead I spent a little extra for a better internet speed, which is still cheaper than cable TV!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AndyD273 (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Seriously?!
      I just checked it last week, and it wasn't available yet.
      This is awesome!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lord Binky, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Netflix e-mailed me on Mar.9 to let me know. Netflix beats Cable/Satellite once again in being useful to me.
        
        The more I think about it the more Cable/Satellite providers seem like lazy assholes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Me too. I'm already halfway through the season. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    And you suggestion presumes that the TV show are worth watching.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    On an internet connected device with Netflix/Hulu streaming. Purchase and watch DVD's on my PC. Buy episodes from iTunes, Amazon, etc.
    
    Oh, you want us to say we have a 50Mbps connection constantly downloading TB of data from Mega, don't you?
    
    You also make the assumption that people must watch TV shows.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    I watch movies and documentaries either on Netflix or on DVD (from the library), but I generally don't watch TV shows.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    What initial point are you assuming?
    I'm going to go on the assumption (hah) that there was no point since the question wouldn't make any sense, since there is no point being assumed.
    
    You mean: "it raises the question".
    
    And most of us have antennas and a subscription to Netflix. At least I do. I watch about 60hours a month on Netflix. I also own a collection of DVDs. Maybe you don't know what's out there besides cable?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Masnick has stated he doesn't use Netflix.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's stated he doesn't have cable or Netflix, but that he doesn't pirate.
        
        How does he watch TV, movies, sports, cartoons, etc.?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps he simply doesn't. Perhaps he just goes to the library. But what does it matter what Mike does? The article is about what 5% of the country does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what does it matter what Mike does?
        
        Seeing as he wrote it, and it's his anti-IP blog, it matters quite a bit if we're to determine how honest he is.
        
        Perhaps he just goes to the library.
        
        lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Conflation, conjecture.
        
        Hmm.
        
        Again, irony not lost.
        
        Shouldn't you, the accuser, prove first that he watches tv, sport, movies, or cartoons?
        
        And then that he doesn't watch youtube, or hulu, or any other video service online that isn't netflix.
        
        And its not like there aren't things like DVD players, OTA channels, and day-after streams from network websites.
        
        What are you trying (and failing, I might add) to prove, again?
        
        Did Mike turn you down for a date?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That Hollywood-hating Mike Masnick probably pirates as much as he possibly can.
        
        I'm far from the only person that considers this the safest assumption one could make.
        
        But nice for you to come to Mike's defense. How does it smell up in there?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That Hollywood-hating Mike Masnick probably pirates as much as he possibly can.
        
        I'm far from the only person that considers this the safest assumption one could make.
        
        Funny that I already answered you above and you're still doubling down on this lie.
        
        I do not pirate anything. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I do not engage in piracy. I do not have any "file sharing" programs on my computer. I don't even have a BitTorrent client, though I have in the past (which was used for authorized content).
        
        You keep making assumptions for whatever reason, but those assumptions are incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2013 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Safe? when is any assumption ever safe?
        
        Assumptions. Wow.. Again, I have to say it, the irony is not lost.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's so funny about the library? I go to the library three times week and get all the music and movies and books I could ever want.
        
        And judging the content on TechDirt, I'm pretty sure Mike spends most of his time online reading news and legal papers. I doubt he has much time left to pirate crappy television shows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does he provide content for his household? He has a wife and kid. Are you saying they don't watch TV or movies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well his answer is below, and it's that he doesn't watch much, but I won't be satisfied with any answer aside from "I pirate everything from Google."
        
        I have a wife and kid too. Cable is an utter waste of money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 12:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does he provide content for his household? He has a wife and kid. Are you saying they don't watch TV or movies?
        
        They don't. Actually, I'm more interested in TV and movies than they are. My wife wanted us to cut the cord long before I did.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They don't.
        
        YOU FILTHY PIRATE LIAR RAPORIST!!! BLAAAARRRRGHH!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is it really so hard to believe that there are people who don't watch much TV?
        
        Aside from the college football my wife loves so much and the occasional DVD rental, neither she nor any of our three kids watch TV.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The industry has a hard time believing there could be any alternatives to the content they provide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The industry works hard to make sure there are no alternatives. That's why they hate the internet. It gives everyone the ability to distribute content for next to nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it's his anti-IP blog
        
        This is not an anti-IP blog. I know that you'll never understand the difference, but I couldn't let that slide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 3:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is not an anti-IP blog.
        
        hahaha
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2013 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hahaha
        
        neener neener, right back at you.
        
        Grow up, get over the rejection, and move on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Colin, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good point.
        
        Oh wait, no, what I meant was, "what's your point?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Netflix and Hulu if I am desperate otherwise I don't do much TV.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    The old fashioned way?
    Over the air free TV.
    Streamed to a computer near you with all the perks of a "smart TV" which is basically a TV with a WiFi attached to it.
    
    For $25 bucks you can build your own buying a Raspberry Pi and pluging it into a TV set.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    I generally prefer watching TV sitting down or lying down.
    
    I tried standing, but it gets uncomfortable after a while.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ooh, I want to join in on this. XBMC for me, either through the Amazon Prime plugin, the PBS Kids plugin, NASA channel plugin, etc.
    
    Just in case: not a single one of my XBMC plugins connect to an unauthorized service. Every single one gets the videos directly off the authorized websites. For example, the PBS Kids plugin gets the videos directly from http://pbskids.org/video/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Computers can connect to TVs via HDMI (or possibly S-Video), which lets you watch online streaming media, downloaded movies, DVDs, etc. VNC lets you use your smartphone as a remote control.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://wwitv.com/portal.htm
    
    There is also Walmart launching their online video streaming service.
    
    https://www.internetretailer.com/2011/07/26/walmartcom-launches-streaming-video-service
    
    WTF!
    
    Walmart!? really?
    
    Aero is another player that is still alive and kicking.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/02/21/172532486/amid-lawsuits-aereo-brings -broadcast-tv-to-the-internet
    
    Quote:
    Another major OTT force: video-game consoles like Xbox and PlayStation, which can also be used to watch streaming Internet video. �They may be doing more business than anybody,� said Andy Tarzon, founding partner of the media research company TDG. �Xbox is the leading viewer for Netflix content.� It will, soon enough, have its own content; parent company Microsoft late last year hired Nancy Tellem, a senior CBS programming executive who helped develop Friends and ER, to direct an on-line TV operation.
    
    The use of programming services that deliver television program via the Internet is mushrooming, with Netflix, YouTube, Amazon and other big names � even Walmart � setting up or expanding operations. �More than anything, that�s gotten everybody�s attention,� said Terence Gray, a longtime network producer who now runs the New York Television Festival. �When you see YouTube�s $100 million investment in programming, or what Amazon�s studios did last year, or Microsoft hiring Nancy Tellem, this is no longer a conversation. This is being done.�
    
    TV networks executives shake uncontrolabbly when they hear the sounds of OTB(over the box) word, network streaming, webseries and new companies that have nothing to do with TV actually investing millions of dollars to produce content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    In my case:
    
    Mostly Netflix, because it works so well.
    
    We subscribe to Hulu Plus, but I find the implementation appalling. That's not a remark about the content, but about how badly the application and the service work. The lack of an Android application for my phone, tablet and Google TV just add to my frustration. That's what the legacy dinosaurs call "adding value" because to them frustration == value.
    
    We are considering adding Amazon Prime.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have an android app for Hulu plus. Do they still only have it on a few devices? I thought it was in wider distribution now.
      
      Amazon Prime and Netflix are ALMOST redundant. I use Amazon instead of Netflix because I also order a lot of crap.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    And it of course begs the question: How does your household (and Masnick's) watch TV shows?
    
    Mostly, I don't. We cut the cord a few months after my son was born because we realized we just don't have time to watch TV. And since then I haven't missed it. The few shows that I have occasionally watched I've found were available on either Hulu or directly on the shows own websites (things like Daily Show and Colbert, for example). But, for the most part, I just don't have time for TV any more. For a while we were renting DVDs from the local video store, but again, no time lately. Every so often I consider signing up for Netflix, but that whole "no time for TV" thing makes it less appealing.
    
    Not sure why you make the assumption that everyone must spend allotted time watching TV.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Since the trolls and shills have nothing better to do they assume everyone else has nothing better to do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Roku player. Not only can you do things like Hulu and netflix and HBOGo but anything streaming on the net you can add to it easily.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This. A million times this. Plus a Plex server for local media streaming.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ding ding ding ding. Plex was an awesome addition to let me move old, old, OLD content from my computer to the big screen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I can clue you in: set-top boxes. We have several Roku boxes. These include a TON of free content. We buy the box, pay for our internet, and watch a shit load of stuff for free. You seem to think this must be piracy, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sudont (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: The 5%
  Yeah, I'm with you. I just bought my first TV, (I'm 53 years old), but wouldn't dream of paying for cable. Remember when the deal with cable was, you have to pay for it, but there were no commercials? They slowly snuck 'em in, and now cable has more commercials than network TV.
  I use it for gaming, but mostly to watch video I've downloaded, or DVDs. I can't tolerate the commercials.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:21am

Hmmm. I was a very early adopter.
Cut the cord in 1992 when Comcast tried to jam five channels down my throat to get one (The Sci-Fi Channel.) Never went back. Never regretted it.

It's nice when the world starts catching up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:33am
  
  Re: Hmmm. I was a very early adopter.
  Me Too !!! Just like you I Cut my Cable Cord somewhere around 8 - 10 years ago.
  All I wanted was the Scifi Channel and some Fiction Stations like Discovery,History, Science.
  
  Told them I would even be willing to pay them for the privilege of Blocking the other channels.All I wanted was a reduction of sorts in my Monthly Bill.They would not work with me so I Cut That Cable and I will never go back.
  
  Nielsen has ruined so many good intelligent shows ! Screw You Nielsen..........Guess it takes you MAFIAA Stooges a Decade to catch up to Reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:30am

Allow me to finish that for you
"The television itself isn't obsolete, however,..."

...it is getting much smarter. Newer model TV's come complete with wifi and multiple HDMI ports so that users can choose to watch all of their video content over the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:41am
  
  Re: Allow me to finish that for you
  Out TV has an internet connection built-in and runs a netflix app. This was partly responsible for our dropping our premium channels and signing up with (Canadian) netflix (yup, not the best, but still good enough for us)... We're not cord cutters, we're partial cord-cutters. Did Neilson count us?
  
  I wonder when TV stations will get smart and start streaming their programming as it is broadcast, the way radio stations do? Or have I been missing something?
  
  BTW, I suspect partial cord cutters Today will be complete cord cutters at some point not so far down the road, so not counting them is a dishonest study of the issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re: Allow me to finish that for you
    The trigger for this happened just a short time ago, when Nielson announced that they were going to start counting the online views along with the broadcast views.
    Up to now, stations were stealing views from themselves when they put something up online right away, which is a big deal to them because they wouldn't have the Nielson numbers to show advertisers. That's why Hulu normally has a week waiting period before they get the episode online.
    With this new decision, they are now have the freedom to put stuff online day of and not lose a view.
    
    ABC has already announced that they are planning on putting stuff up right away. It'll happen more and more.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tammy Burton, 14 May 2014 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Allow me to finish that for you
    You are on point. Only way for tv to keep viewers it has right now is to start streaming live at same time over air. Then they might actually keep viewers. Nielsen needs to be scrapped. It's not accurate anymore and they need to switch to 4 season instead on 1. People are not hanging around during hiatus so they should shorten tv shows to 10 to 13 episodes and run them without interruption. Networks pay attention to cable stations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:30am

well, look at this way
5% +- 25%.

that would sound about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am

When I mention not using a traditional tv, most people ask me how to view traditional TV content on the web. I usually point them to services like justin.tv, and livenewschat.tv. It's clear that there is a growing number of people who are disgusted with the cable companies borderline thievery and do whatever it takes to "cut the cable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  The problem is that these same cartels own your Internet connection too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AndyD273 (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    For now...
    Disrupters will come along, such as Google fiber in KS, Muni broadband, etc, and at some point there will be a subtle shift, like is happening with traditional land lines to cell phones/voip.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2013 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not mine. My electric utility provides me with the fastest consumer fiber optic Internet service in America. Comcast and AT&T are getting hosed in my town, and it's a beautiful sight.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am

Here�s something interesting for them to ponder that I haven�t seen brought up, and I doubt I�m the only one in this position.

I cut the cord, so now without cable/satellite I follow the shows I have a specific interest in, at my leisure and choice of time AND place. I am finding it troublesome to find new shows to watch, or keep up with anything that isn�t easily predictable. I don�t want to waste my time searching for when a season starts back up, or what day do I have to wait to see the next episode.

I got my time back from a bad habit and I like it. I�m watching TV as a whole less and less and I think it�s great, but how are they going to respond to that? How are they going to get me back or even keep my attention in the long run?

I no longer flip through channels finding something to watch, I don�t have a myriad of commercials telling me about new shows either, I don�t research TV shows, hell they don�t even make it simple (it�s so bad it has to be on purpose) to find out basics outside their TV centered ecosystem.

They�re becoming completely irrelevant faster than they know, and they may think they�ll have a second chance someday when I have kids, but the reality is that�s not going to happen without me still having the bad habit. I can�t say I care at all if these companies fail to keep up, because the only certain thing is someone else will be there to take the opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike tv, 14 Mar 2013 @ 7:41am
  
  Re:
  rlslog.net for finding newly released material.
  nextepisode.net for finding when the next episode will be available.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:37am

Another nice thing about internet TV... no political ads... a distinct pleasure this last cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:47am
  
  Re:
  The only political ads I saw were the ones Jon Stewart was making fun of. Life without commercials is awesome.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  hm. Never thought of this angle before. Perhaps a backdoor into campaign finance reform? After all the (alleged) reason the politician's need all that money is to fund television advertisements.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bjflanagan (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:37am

TV Viewers Are Cord Cutting
Twenty years ago, when 'The Player' came out, we all laughed at the Hollywood exec who said they could do without actors, directors and writers.

Today, we call that "reality" TV, and, as has been said, it sucks balls.

Now, in the wake of Newtown, we have a sudden glut of turgid slime about psychopathic serial killers.

If it weren't for Netflix, I'd put my TV out of its misery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: TV Viewers Are Cord Cutting
  exactly, that's what my TV has become: a big monitor. not anything to do with broadcast entertainment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:37am

i'm hatin' on the bastards...
...but can't cut the cord because of SWMBO gots to have her glass teat ! ! !

have actually made *some* progress: want to downgrade our dish package, but there is ONE channel in the upper tier she *really* wants, but think i can get that either online or through hulu...

otherwise, it is ONLY sports that keeps us in the thrall of our Big Media monopolists...

for myself, i'm so pissed at Big Media, i would give up the sports on teevee and listen to it on radio... *THAT* is how much i hate on the bastards...

(in fact, since we just got screwed by our ISP when they got dropped from espn3/espngo/espnwatch/WHATEVER the fuck they are calling it this week, we can't even get the online stuff anymore... fuckers: we HATE ALL OF YOU, but we have no choice for alternatives... the NANOSECOND we do, you greed monsters are his story...)

Big Media can go piss up a rope...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:39am

More Nuanced Analysis, Please.
Whoa! Why do they keep throwing around that "I" word? I do not use a television to get "Information". That big screen is dedicated to Entertainment only.

And the only reason I'm not in the "cord cutter" group is that Comcast charges more for Internet alone than it does to bundle it with "Limited Basic" cable in my area. Do they have a metric for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: More Nuanced Analysis, Please.
  And the only reason I'm not in the "cord cutter" group is that Comcast charges more for Internet alone than it does to bundle it with "Limited Basic" cable in my area. Do they have a metric for that?
  
  This is me, too.
  
  I'm willing to bet they do have a metric for that. My cable TV box isn't even plugged in. I'm quite sure that their system tracks box usage at least to the point of knowing if they're connected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coogan (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:40am

I would've cut the cord by now, but I haven't seen a way to reliably get ESPN on my TV without it. I just enjoy my college football too much.

That's really the *only* programming I'm unwilling to give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:42am

Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
Seems that your notion is this portends imminent disaster for all of old-fashioned "teevee" when that form of non-interactive "entertainment" will hang on indefinitely, as radio has. I think that as usual, you're casting this in the most extreme hyperbole you can come up with. They may want to officially deny it for the public (just an any large organization denies the truth, as in: we're not going to kill US citizens in America with drones, no way), but this IS public knowledge.

NOW. What can we see from this about Nielsen and the whole field of advertising? -- FIRST, IT'S ALL LIES! Nielsen and ad agencies have direct interest in promoting the myths and numbers, and so they lie. It's hardly surprising, as Mike so often says. -- 2nd, as I've been trying to get Mike to notice for, oh, at least 2 years I guess, is that advertising is DESPISED, and will be avoided whenever possible. The implications are immense.

But instead of speculating on the collapse of advertising, in effect Mike goes on as if "teh internets" are pretty much just another form of non-interactive entertainment and so advertising support will continue to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
  "2nd, as I've been trying to get Mike to notice for, oh, at least 2 years I guess, is that advertising is DESPISED, "
  
  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe, just maybe, Mike realized something like that a loooong time ago. If I remember correctly, he's written articles about it
  
  "If the advertisements are too annoying and/or intrusive, people will go away and the value of that advertising drops. Any smart media property knows this, and actually works quite hard on keeping the user experience as good as possible, which quite frequently means pushing back against the desires of advertisers. "
  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120813/00081620002/fee-based-twitter-is-no-more-ideologically -pure-than-ad-supported-twitter.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 14 Mar 2013 @ 6:02am
    
    Re: Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
    @ "Rikuo (profile), Mar 13th, 2013 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
    "2nd, as I've been trying to get Mike to notice for, oh, at least 2 years I guess, is that advertising is DESPISED, "
    
    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe, just maybe, Mike realized something like that a loooong time ago. If I remember correctly, he's written articles about it"
    --------
    
    You ARE out on a limb there, fanboy, a short one that you sawed off between you and the tree: August of 2012, a mere 7 months ago, is well within the two years that I stated. So you prove that I tipped Mike to it.
    
    In any case, it's such a fundamental concern to his precious Google and the web in general that he should be focused on it frequently, rather than, say, on Prenda Law...
    
    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    Prenda Law! A staple in the "At The Bench" series. Mike sez (short version): "Wow. Wow. Wow. ... The story is gripping."
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130303/23353022182/prenda-law-sues-critics-defamation .shtml
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 7:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
      So you prove that I tipped Mike to it.
      
      lol!
      
      How about this one? I mean he doesn't exactly say "advertising is hated" but it's about ad blindness, and why else would we ignore ads?
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091012/0331366489.shtml
      
      Anyway I don't feel like trolling through the TD archives anymore just to prove you're an idiot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 14 Mar 2013 @ 5:53am
  
  UPDATE Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
  HA! Am I prescient, or what? Already, Google begins to enforce viewing its advertising:
  
  AdBlock Plus BLOCKED from Google Play
  
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/14/adblocker_blocked_by_google_play/
  
  Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
  http://techdirt.com/
  Mike will soon announce T-shirts that he personally silk-screens! Just $1000 each! -- He's selling REAL scarcity as only one in 20 come out legible!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2013 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: UPDATE Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
    But not by any of the 3rd party app stores.
    
    What are you getting at?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 14 Mar 2013 @ 6:18am
  
  UPDATE 2 Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
  Reading more at The Register finds I'm doubly prescient!
  
  eBay: Our paid Google advertising was a total waste of money
  
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/13/ebay_study_google_paid_search_not_worth_it/
  
  Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
  http://techdirt.com/
  All the news you saw last week on other sites, re-written to cherry pick points that fit Mike's agenda.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2013 @ 8:40am
    
    Re: UPDATE 2 Re: Well, falling, but it's NOT going away entirely!
    I guffawed at the fact that you think this is anything more than a coincidence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:44am

Five Percent sounds waay low to me. I would guess it's much closer to 10. They also seem clueless as to why this is when it's plainly obvious that I don't want another restaurant-recovery-reality show or a totally fake ghost-hunting show. The cost structure of paid TV channels was clearly not controlled during the fast growth years of the 90s, because it's led to just loads of copycat crap being produced now. Only a few channels seem to understand the need to produce art for viewing, and then not that often.

Live sports is the only reason to pay for television, Nielsen's own ratings should show this, but they fail to make the proper conclusion again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  Among my friends, about half don't have cable TV (if you count people like me who get it but don't use it because it makes internet cheaper).
  
  But that's heavy selection bias right there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  I'm wondering how they determined the 5%. I thought Nielsen reports were based off of monitoring technology installed in a specific number of households, not every home that has a television connection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    It is. It also brings up another question. Can you be asked to join Nielsen if you don't have a cable account?
    
    I guess my question is how do they pick the Nielsen families? I'd lay money on them picking families in a way that eliminates most of the people who cut the cord.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  id say its probably a bit low and also doesnt cover people like me.
  the girlfriend pays for the broadcast part of the bill and we split the internet part because i dont watch cable tv. we have one converter which is in her office and i only make use is online/OTA.
  
  because of her insistence on having the broadcast service, i cant be counted as a cord-cutter.... now think for a moment how many people are in my situation? how many kids are in households that only touch the TV for their game console and/or media center and never watch the broadcast side from their provider? there is actually a lot of them out there and none of them get counted as cord-cutters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:45am

While I did see how they seem to believe they discovered "cord cutters", I didn't get condescension from what they said. Perhaps I'm just a bit thick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:49am

and the difference between this reaction/attitude and that of the actual entertainment industries is what, exactly? i know the reaction will be to throw some more dollar bills at a few more politicians and expect them to crank up protection laws and stop people from refusing to use TV's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:56am

Seven years
If this follows the same pattern of past disruptive trend lines, they only have 7 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:56am

Over two years now...
I dropped cable TV over two years ago and have no interest in going back. I still have Internet and I subscribe to Netflix and Hulu. If I need local channels, I get them over the air with an antenna. It's taken a $130+ monthly bill and dropped it to roughly half. I still get the shows I want to watch and I get an extra $800 a year to play with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:57am

They treat it like they've discovered a brand new species, Contentus Withoutus,....

Too funny. Almost spit coffee on my keyboard laughing at that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  He has probably been binging on old looney tune cartoons ... :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chodelord (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:03am

cancelled cable ~ 15 years ago
briefly had it back with a verizon internet and tv package a couple of years ago but very quickly canceled again

thanks to torrents we can get everything we want as soon as it is released, sometimes before

watching tv seasons one episode a night for two weeks is so much better than waiting months for it

and I've never seen a tv show that wasn't available online within minutes of a broadcast finishing

if netflix would make a linux client I might get that but they don't and i'm not bothering with windows just for one service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:12am

I have to ask these people posting here who say they've "cut the cord" and don't have cable or satillite service. How are you even posting here, are you still on dial-up. If not, you haven't cut the cord and just made them shift the cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  "Cut the cord" means no cable TV service, not no internet service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  I'm lucky enough to have an independent internet provider that's not part of a media conglomerate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    As do I (sonic.net DSL) - although they use an AT&T DSL circuit to deliver their service to me.
    
    Fortunately AT&T doesn't control the use of the circuit between my house and sonic.net's backbone, so I have no caps or filtering bullshit going on here :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:14am

I'm slowly cutting the cord. At home we only keep cable TV for variety, news and sports channels. Movies got cut (and we are saving over $60 per month already) in favor of Netflix and a super fast internet connection.

It's a trend. And it'll grow exponentially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jilocasin (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:58am

this cord cutter also a Nielsen family ....
We've long since 'cut the cord' at my house. Flat panel televisions used for, in order:
PS3
PS2
XBOX 360
NetFlix
DVD
BlueRay

Not too long ago I got a call from a polite Nielsen rep. asking if we would be willing to 'be a Nielsen family'. I tried to explain to the nice lady that we don't subscribe to cable TV, satellite, or even watch over the air channels.

That was a difficult conversation to say the least. Finally she settled on the line that all types of television watching people were important and if we could maintain some diaries for them anyway. In the end I said, sure why not.

The diaries arrived in the mail and the appointed week rolled around. I diligently filled them in.

[tv on - time], [tv off - time] channel watched - [none]

again and again it went.

In the notes at the end I reiterated that we have no, cable, satellite, over the air capability (even our internet isn't through the cable company). There were no channels, because we don't use our televisions in that way.

I sometimes wonder what they made of that info......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: this cord cutter also a Nielsen family ....
  I sometimes wonder what they made of that info......
  
  Wonder no more! Now you know - you're an oddity in their minds, one of the 5% "strange consumer behavior" statistics.
  
  Keep it up :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ralph, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:03am

I dropped my pay TV subscription about four years ago. Five years before that I dropped my landline

Now I don't have to listen to DISH tell me how it is someone else's fault they have removed my favorite program from their lineup of a zillion channels I mostly didn't want to watch. Even more annoying, they would remove popular without alerting customers about it; you had to find out about it by googling.

I have A LOT more freedom now. I watch exactly what I want when I want. My phone goes where I go.

I'm surprised that more people don't do this. There are a lot of stupid things about the 21st---why not at least enjoy the good stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ByteMaster (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:17am

Interesting tidbit...
Most people watch TV in their living rooms using traditional cable or satellite options. In fact, [b]more than 95 percent of Americans get their information[/b] and entertainment that way

That's what we've been saying all along: the copyright industry also controls the flow of information, but here you have Nielsen confirming it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: Interesting tidbit...
  And if that's true it's the primary reason our government is in such a sorry state.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NoCable, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:17am

content
I cut the cord about a year ago out of disgust for my cable company. The quality of there service was horrible so when my contract was up I dumped cable. I thought it would be tough but I have found to my delight that it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I set up a HTPC with XBMC installed and was amazed at the amount of original content available through add-ons that stream content from websites like Youtube, JustinTV, Etc.
I realized just how much I had been missing out on by restricting my watching to cable. It's interesting that the quality and entertainment value of what I'm watching has increased but thanks to no commercials or wasted time channel surfing the amount of time I spend in front of the TV has decreased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AndyD273 (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:26am

Zero-TV definition
I would be really interested to hear what their definition of what a Zero-TV home is.

From the sounds of it, it's not just a home that doesn't have cable/sat, but also doesn't have over the air, which makes a lot more sense given that 5% number.

The number that use both internet and over the air instead of cable is quite a bit higher if I remember correctly.

Nielson announced a good month or more ago that they were going to start counting internet tv services in their numbers such as Netflix, YouTube and Hulu, and some of the bigger networks like ABC are responding to the announcement that they are going to be putting their shows online day of instead of after a week wait because of it.

For lots of great cord cutting news check out Frame Rate on the TWIT network: http://twit.tv/show/frame-rate
It's one of my favorite weekly video netcasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AndyD273 (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: Zero-TV definition
  Here's the info about ABC putting their stuff up online thanks to Nielson deciding to count online viewers:
  http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/5/4066982/abc-unified-disney-nielsen-tv-anywhere-advertisin g-platform
  
  This is better than a la cart channels. This trend will grow, and it will eat the cable companies from within, because all the sudden they will have to face a level of competition that they haven't had to deal with since they got their regional monopolies.
  
  It will be interesting to see what their response is to this threat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CK20XX, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:36am

I stopped watching TV over a decade ago.
After Animaniacs was canceled, there just didn't seem to be any point to it anymore. I prefer to buy DVD boxsets now, or watch shows online through various means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Mind (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:36am

We Were a Nielsen Family
About a year ago I got the call to be a Nielsen. I asked them outright on the phone if I should fill in the stuff I watched on Netflix and online. The operator said "yes" without hesitation. However, the booklet they give you to fill out your viewing record is awkward for online stuff. I ended up watching it online but then saying I watched it during normal time slot (ie. lying) Netflix stuff I just didn't report even though Netflix is about 50% of what gets watched here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:43am

Cut the cord 3 years ago - HAven't looked back since!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:49am

I got teed off at constant reruns, poor programming, and expensive cable packages. When they changed over to digital, I dropped TV all together. Before that, I was using it for a dvd play back but with no outside input such as cable or over-the-air. When the changeover came for digital, I realized I didn't use TV enough to justify buying another.

I've been TV-less for many years now. I don't missed the stupid in those shows. I certainly don't miss the commercials that both broadcasting and ad companies want to shove down our throats and find that my life has a much calmer tone with them missing.

I have no interest in televised sports, I get news and weather from the net. I have no intentions of putting another tv in my home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:41am

Not missing anything. No TV needed.
I honestly haven't even owned a tv in over a decade now and the last one I had was used exclusively for console games. Figured out how to hook my console to an old lcd monitor and never looked back.

Any 'shows' or 'movies' I want to watch are available online, at any time I happen to be in the mood to see them. I pay for a few websites to improve my streaming access but my total internet and streaming bill comes to $51 a month and is a hell of a lot more versatile than any cable system ever has been.

Really, there it is a rather obvious decision.
100$+/month for arbitrarily scheduled oft repeated programming fraught with pre-empting for events I don't care about. To say nothing of the 9-20 minutes worth of advertising per hour.
vs.
51$ a month for access to whatever I want, whenever I want to see it. Minimal ads, some of which are even targeted to me specifically rather then at demographics I have no ties to. Unlimited ability to pause, skip, rewind, replay. Plus everything ELSE the internet has to offer. I can even watch things on my mp3 player, laptop and phone, wherever I am. Visiting friends/family? I can access my accounts from any computer and keep up with or share what I'm interested in.

And I'm supposedly 'missing out'. Yeah, Sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:57am

When Nielsen bases their studies on 'Nielsen families', people that have cut the cord are not accounted for. How is it that anything short of '% of our Nielsen families have dropped out of the program citing some form of cord cutting' be used to make a guess about consumer behavior?

It's like when digital downloads were not counted in video game sales, so 'sales' went down but magically more money was made than what was being 'sold'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Shore, 13 Mar 2013 @ 12:07pm

I still watch TV shows and movies on my TV. I have not rejected my TV. I have simply rejected expensive cable packages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cdaragorn (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 12:57pm

Best answer I can give
I know this has probably been said already, but it reminds me of my 5 year old son's perfect description of our habits:

"Commercials??? I haven't seen commercials in forever!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:35pm

Another thought occurred to me
I used to consider cable TV to be the "premium" home video source. However, when I'm visiting people who have cable and sit down to watch something there, it now strikes me as the low-end (in quality, not price) way to get home video.

The video quality sucks, you can't watch things on your own schedule, and oh, lord, the commercials are just painful.

Almost any other option is a higher-quality experience. And, I think, more and more people are realizing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:50pm

Soo.
Soo.
WHAT is the USE' of cable/sat?

its distribution. to get a signal around the country, without installing 10,000 Towers and power locations to send a signal.
THIS SAVE THEM MONEY..TONS OF MONEY.

Promise of CABLE, were LESS commercials, MORE SHOWS.. NEVER HAPPENED.

PROBLEM of CABLE/SAT..NATIONAL commercials, its hard to send Location specific Commercials. Your local bike shop cant send you a commercial. So you end up with Adverts for locations and shops that MAY(probably arnt) near you. Considering that over 3/4 of the nations is considered RURAL/Farming.

So, if you are going to watch 10-15 minutes of commercials EVERY HOUR, why are you paying for it?

When cable started, you got BASIC CABLE $20, then added packages $10 each...NOW, you pay for ESPN even if you dont watch it.. you pay for religious channels you may not want..You pay for SALES channels(even tho they SEEM to be free..You pay for music, Alt-language(Spanish/other)channels..And TONS of stuff that you Dont/wont watch..

WHY pay for something you DONT WANT to watch?

If you look at the Full listings, MOST(almost all) people watch LESS then 20 channels. And that is a HIGH selection. Many only watch about 10.

But, for all the infrastructure NEEDED to send a signal to EVERYONE in the USA.. wouldnt you think CABLE/SAT would be cheap?
LET them setup Antenna's AROUND the country to get your advertising dollar. It will make TONS of jobs. Forget CABLE/SAt until they drop the prices.
I wouldnt mind $20 per month, for ALL the channels..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Taylor, 13 Mar 2013 @ 2:05pm

No TV needed. No internet needed. Got nature and a book
Why don't all just go out, read a book and enjoy nature? After TV is dead, the internet comes next because we have expensive caps.

No. not missing anything. No need to worry on what's going on in the world. Got my bible and the great outdoors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:30pm
  
  Re: No TV needed. No internet needed. Got nature and a book
  ...then how did you comment here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 2:31pm

Cable is living on sports, and will die by sports
Right now, sports is driving cable viewership (& TV for that matter), but the majority who don't watch ESPN are getting tired of it. Over at Deadspin, they frequently post about a bubble in sports rights costs for the sports channels, and that a big bump in cable rates, like to the tune of 25%, is coming in the next couple of years, due to new sports deals.

For the less-sports-watching majority, I think this will be a tipping point, causing large numbers of these viewers to look at Netflix & other entertainment-only content options. A $150 cable bill is going to be a bridge too far, especially given the fact that the bump was due to a "sports tax". The funny thing is that Deadspin commenters know they're being subsidized by everyone else, but they always say that everyone else will just pay extra so they can watch all the sports they want to watch, cheaply. (Also, given the economy & programming quality, that 5% number is seriously understated, by a factor of 5 or 6, especially when you factor in household consolidation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dean, 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:11pm

Nielsen survey
We just sent our one week TV diary back to Nielsen. It was totally gated towards cable. No acknowledgment of over the air digital channels like a "27.3" Absolutely no instructions on how to code a show you watch on Hulu, from a website or Netflix. We had to call them to ask how to do that. Nielsen are in 100% denial that there is a different way to watch TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:47pm

Remember the half time locker room scene from the movie "Slapshot," in which Strother Martin, who plays the coach of the not-doing-so-well ice hockey team, resplendent in his four inches too short trousers and white socks, paces in circles around the locker room, stops and bellows "We're losing!!" Substitute a cable network executive for the coach. Now that's funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gadiv, 14 Mar 2013 @ 11:15am

Cowabunga!
I thought it was most amusing that the Nielsen document referred to users who "surf the Net" - I don't think I've heard that phrase since the 90s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bababooey, 5 Jun 2013 @ 7:31pm

Commercials
The greatest invention ever is the Internet / Torrent sites.

Goodbye cable / satellite, hello commercial free Internet!

Figure out how to stream Duke bb games and I'll use my TV for target practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kitty whiskers, 8 Aug 2013 @ 4:00am

Nielsen has ruined tv.....I use the internet and read books for entertainment........hopefully Nielsen will go the way of the vcr and just fade away. I mean paper diaries in the age of the internet is just ridiculous...cable is awful and Nielsen gives timeslot credit when people aren't even watching...hence crappy shows get to stay on the air. I hope one day they are all unemployed......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob F, 23 Aug 2013 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: Nielsen
  Kitty - a couple of things..
  Full disclosure - I work in at the Network level.
  More full disclosure - I probably hate Nielsen more than you.
  Mostly die to sampling.
  But -
  Depending on where you live, Nielsen hasn't used a paper diary in years. The major markets have been LPM (Local People Meter) for maybe 5 years. The way they work doesn't allow a viewer to turn on a channel, leave the TV for hours and the channel to get credit for it.
  Last year when Nielsen acquired Arbitron (Radio ratings), they did it primarily to get their meter technology which provides for measurement via encoded signal. Nielsen ois testing in select markets and plans to roll it out in the top 100 DMAs. It will also measure OTA and mobile tv viewing as well (mobile will be done through app technology)
  The real reason Nielsen exists has little to do with programming of TV shows -it's got everything to do with companies being able to make effective and efficient media buying decisions. As much as the some people may want to deny it, TV is still the leading media for creating brand awareness and purchase intent
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ECA (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 7:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Nielsen
    COMMERCIALS. in english and american..
    ITS FOR AVERTS...the higher the show rates, the MORe they can CHARGE for advert slots..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elliander Eldridge, 20 Dec 2014 @ 4:03pm

Before I cut cable TV my favorite channels moved from "basic" to "expanded basic" in which I had to pay $50 more a month to watch them. I told them when I cancelled that if they wanted me as a customer again they would have to provide me with a way to have a plan where I can select just the channels I want and pay like that. I then purchased a streaming media box and I have been watching Netflix and Youtube ever since. I have to wait a bit longer, but since I only have to pay $10 as opposed to $100 and I get to watch the same shows I like at the times I want them why not?

Another thing I like is that streaming services have the capability of fully tracking viewing habits. I actually make money from advertising revenue on youtube so I can see what videos are seen when and how often and in what countries so that I know what content is popular in what isn't. I don't have to rely on a silly little sample size. I see it all!

As a viewer, I like to know that my viewing habits matter. When I watched a new show on Netflix they immediately renewed it because they knew at a glance what the viewing habits were,

For cable television to survive a few things need to change.

1.) Stop forcing people to pay for channels they don't watch. Seriously. You can sell them in packages of channels that people get to choose, and you can offer better deals on the bulk packages you select, but but you can't otherwise compete. Since everything is digital cable this is an easy thing to implement. You aren't making more money by charging double. You are making LESS money by pushing customers away. If you do this you have a better chance to get them to expand their channels in the future.

2.) Outfit all new televisions with built in feedback. Allow the televisions themselves to act like Nielson hardware sending back viewing habits on EVERYTHING, not just a few, so that the stations know the REAL ratings are. If you bundle these televisions with a DVD that can be monitored by the same feedback system it would be able to monitor what shows are watched later, what ads are watched or skipped, and provide information that even a Nielson home just records as "The DVR Channel". More importantly, this would help sell new television standards by campaigning on the promise to give every home a vote in what shows survive. Once you do this people will make a point to watch their favorite shows on cable TV even if the alternative is cheaper just because it makes them feel like if they don't the show might be cancelled.

Or you can just go on like usual in which case it's been nice knowing you, but cable TV will be extinct within a generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rnady, 22 Oct 2015 @ 3:03pm

cut the cord
My three main reasons I've cut the cord.
1. commercials blaring volume.
2. why too much commercial content.
3. Price, if I'm paying I shouldn't have to see all the advertisement or be rated as to content. Cable should have free rain on adult content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bobsyouruncle, 8 Feb 2016 @ 9:15am

You people are Amazing! Amazingly living in denial and a bunch of hypocrites. Where are all these free, no commercial prime TV shows on the internet? Ain't nothing free without a hitch. Netflix and Hulu are both paid services, with Hulu you got commercials, Netfilx will eventually have them too. You can't stop it, all online streaming will have ads and commercials. You are simply trading one form of Cable for another. If you're going to cut the cord, cut the whole damn cord. People who say they cut the cord but are still watching TV on their computers, dvd players, online aren't fooling anybody. Cable companies are are already heading towards online paid subscription, don't think they won't buy out everyone else and then you will have no option but to go through them. This so called "cut the cord" revolution is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 8 Feb 2016 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  Where are all these free, no commercial prime TV shows on the internet?
  
  Who is claiming they exist?
  
  You can't stop it, all online streaming will have ads and commercials.
  
  I see no indication that Netflix wants to introduce ads. One of their main selling points is there are no ads, they would be extremely foolish to throw that away, and they've demonstrated they are anything but foolish.
  
  People who say they cut the cord but are still watching TV on their computers, dvd players, online aren't fooling anybody.
  
  "Cutting the cord" means canceling cable or satellite TV service. It doesn't mean not watching any TV shows. You can cut the cord and continue watching TV via an antenna or online services.
  
  Cable companies are are already heading towards online paid subscription, don't think they won't buy out everyone else and then you will have no option but to go through them.
  
  You're saying cable companies are going to buy Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and Google?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]