Time Warner Cable CEO: Cable TV Pricing Is So High Because We're The Mercedes Of Entertainment
from the not-just-a-river-in-Egypt dept
Over the last year we've finally started to see the emergence of more flexible Internet video options like the "skinny bundle," where customers nab a cheaper, smaller base package of channels, with the option to pick and choose from add-on "channel packs." SlingTV is perhaps the most well-known option (though broadcasters have ensured it lacks DVR functionality), and Verizon has also been experimenting with the concept as well (and were sued by ESPN for their trouble). While not the pure "a la carte" play many had called for, it's at least a baby step away from massive, over-priced cable lineups.Not surprisingly, however, the same cable industry executives that don't think cord cutting is real state they don't see what the skinny bundle fuss is about. In fact, Time Warner Cable CEO Robert Marcus recently crowed that the cable giant isn't seeing any interest in the skinny bundle:
"The headlines over the last several months have been way ahead of the facts," Marcus said. "We're not seeing this mass migration to skinny bundles. In fact, in the second quarter, roughly 82 percent of our video connects took the preferred bundle…which is the fattest of the fat bundle. It's still a great value. We can't lose track of that."Marcus ignores several things here. One, Time Warner Cable lost 45,000 basic cable subscribers last quarter, users who are either fleeing toward more competitively-priced cable options, or toward the Internet video options Marcus pretends aren't slowly changing the game. Two, many existing Time Warner Cable customers continue to bundle services like television and voice with their cable service, because they're usually penalized financially if they try to purchase services piecemeal. Three, you might see broader adoption of more flexible channel options and pricing -- if you actually offered some.
Like most cable companies, Time Warner Cable pays a lot of lip service to "value," but the bottom line is that it refuses to compete on price. And these companies will continue to refuse to compete on price until Internet video reaches critical mass and customers begin to defect in greater numbers. Until then, cable executives spend the lion's share of their time trying to somehow justify cable's ridiculous pricing. For example, Marcus recently defended his company's high prices by insisting Time Warner Cable is the Mercedes of video viewing options:
"There continues to be this perception that it is not a competitive market; that the market is not somehow working," Marcus says in an interview with Multichannel News. "Living in the world we do every day, competing for customers, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The best governor of pricing is an effective marketplace and we live in that world every day."Here's the problem with Time Warner Cable claiming high prices are all you need to claim you offer a luxury service: Time Warner Cable is literally the least liked company in any industry in America, with arguably the worst customer service in the country. Of course, it's not particularly surprising that a guy who is about to personally make $85 million from Charter's acquisition of Time Warner Cable isn't particularly in-tune with the value-needs of his typical customer, but executives like Marcus are going to have to pull their collective heads of of the sand post haste if they want to minimize the impact of the Internet video revolution, and the cheaper, more flexible channel options they insist nobody wants.
"...It can’t be the case that you can get for the really low price all of the great attributes in the products that you can at the higher-end prices. There is always going to be the Hyundai and the Mercedes."
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: bundles, cable tv, pricing, robert marcus
Companies: time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So roughly 18 percent--almost one-fifth--of your "connects" migrated to skinny bundles in the first two quarters alone and you don't see a mass migration?
Dude is either blind or delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An interesting stat would be the what is the bundle distribution at 6mths, 9mth and 12mths after the start of service/video connect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're not seeing this mass migration to skinny bundles...
BUT NOOOOOOOOOO........
What I want is in the preferred bundle and nowhere else.
So my choice is the highly inflated price or do without.
Guess what I'm going to choose very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We're not seeing this mass migration to skinny bundles...
And that is the problem in a nutshell, isn't it...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We're not seeing this mass migration to skinny bundles...
Hope you find a good alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's trying to sell Yugos at Mercedes prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's trying to sell Yugos at Mercedes prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mercedes of entertainment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exclusive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
...suuuure, mate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope, executives like Marcus are putting their $85 million in the bank and looking the other way. He/They don't care what anybody else wants, they got their money. How else are they going to get all that money if they don't take it from their customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skinny bundle scam
As someone who ditched cable TV years ago, I can honestly say that I don't miss it at all. When I see cable now, it reminds me of what a crappy product cable TV actually is. It is so bad in my eyes that I wouldn't take it if it were free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"skinny bundle" is a "weightist" remark
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weightist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Time Warner is the Mercedes of entertainment"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or... they will impose lower and lower bandwidth caps while continuously increasing internet prices making it a downright pain to manage and stay under while streaming your TV watching online 'til people start giving up and getting TV again to give themselves room to breathe browsing the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
executive heads
Sand is not where their heads are, it is more like a place where the sun doesn't shine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: executive heads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cut cable long ago. Even in those years cable wasn't satisfying me with quality broadcasting. The quality was going down hill then and over the years hasn't done anything to improve it's array of trash offered for public consumption. When you look at the amount of reruns coming in back to back (I'm assuming they still do that) you've already lost 1/2 the value of your money in the product you are paying for. Then consider you are forking out the money and still seeing commercials after you have paid for a service. That's a step much too far for me. I don't accept that on tv, I won't accept it on the internet, I damn sure am not going to accept it for PPV.
It's great to hear Markus believes his product is running swimmingly. I hope he still sees it that way in another 10 years at the rate it's going. Personally I see nothing I want from tv nor from PPV. There will not be a dish nor a cable run to this residence for the purposes of tv nor phone. That eliminates any need to speak of what sort of packages are being offered. Neither fat nor skinny is wanted in this household.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, and I'm the Dolores of your Cojones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Building a bridge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skinny bundles are more of the same
The problem lies with the cable model itself. You force customers to pay ever-increasing rates for access to low-quality content crammed full of commercials. I wouldn't pay a nickel for that kind of viewing experience. Even free apps that blast me with ads get deleted from my Roku.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]