Ten Years Later, Cable Industry Finally Realizes More Ads Is Not The Solution To Cord Cutting
from the who-knew? dept
For years we've noted how the traditional cable TV industry is slowly-but-surely bleeding customers tired of paying an arm and a leg for bloated bundles of often terrible programming. And for just as long we've documented how far too many cable and broadcast executives are hell bent on doubling down on all of the bad behaviors that cause these defections in the first place. That has ranged from knee jerk price hikes in the face of growing streaming competition, to efforts to stuff more ads into every viewing hour, whether by editing down programs or speeding them up to ensure maximum commercial load.
The ugly truth most cable and broadcasting executives can't face is that the era of the sacred cable TV cash cow is over. Television simply isn't going to be as profitable in the wake of real competition and the more flexible, cheaper pay TV alternatives that competition is providing. And while countless industry executives still somehow think this is a fad they can wait out, there's growing evidence that at least a few industry executives are finally getting the message.
Fox executives, for example, last week signaled that they intend to dramatically lower the ad load to two minutes an hour across their networks by 2020 (it's currently 13 minutes for broadcast networks and 16 minutes for cable):
"The two minutes per hour is a real target for Fox, and also our challenge for the industry,” said Ed Davis, chief product officer for ad sales at Fox Networks Group, in an email. “Creating a sustainable model for ad-supported storytelling will require us all to move."
By "move," Davis means "actually compete and adapt," which should be a no brainer after watching ESPN lose ten million audience members in just the last few years. The old model of hammering customers with as many ads as they can stomach (and then some) while also charging massive subscription fees is finished. That's something even Comcast NBC Universal execs seem to realize as they also aim to cut ad load during prime time shows by 10% and the number of ads during commercial breaks by 20%:
"The industry knows that television is already the most effective advertising medium there is, but we need to make the experience better for viewers,” said Linda Yaccarino, chairman of advertising and client partnerships at NBCUniversal, in the statement. “We’re reimagining the advertising experience for consumers, marketers, and the entire industry."
It can't be understated how hard it was for the industry to come to the realization that perhaps it needed to annoy its paying customers less and compete a little more. Many of these same executives have spent the better part of the last decade either ignoring or downplaying the cord cutting threat, many arguing it was just a fad that would end once Millennials began procreating more (that didn't happen). Combined with the rise of more streamlined and expensive alternatives (Dish, Sling TV, AT&T's DirecTV Now, etc.), there's some real signs of evolutionary traction in the stubborn sector.
That said, there's still plenty of opportunities for these companies to double down on bad behavior on other fronts. As TV becomes less of a money maker, many companies have just started jacking up the price of broadband (via either usage caps and overage fees or obnoxious hidden fees), given there's no competitive repercussion. And with the looming death of net neutrality, the use of anti-competitive tactics to jack up your TV/Phone/broadband bill in other "creative" ways is going to grow as these companies seek out their pound of flesh elsewhere.
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: ads, cable, cord cutting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But according to out_of_the_blue Masnick is wrong when he says that the cable industry can't be driven by even more ads, so Masnick is stupid.
The fuck? /sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
all this time hawking has been using the wrong terminology. instead of universe and big bang, all along it was really advertising medium and first ad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's all about trade-offs
What's remarkable is that all this is happening with viewer numbers that are astoundingly low compared to a couple decades ago. The top-rated scripted show in 2016 was The Walking Dead. In 1995, that would have put it between #13 (Murphy Brown) and #14 (Hope and Gloria) The top-rated broadcast show, The Big Bang Theory, would have tied for #50.
Clearly this variety isn't sustainable with the total subscriber/viewer base on the wane. That means either more commercials to make up for the lost revenue and/or cost reductions in the production process and/or swift cancellation of shows that today would be considered to have marginal revenue.
Alternately, studios can sell shows to a streaming service to be included in their programming bundle, or they can create their own streaming service. But that's going to either drive up the price of the current streaming services OR lead to further Balkanization of streaming content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On a side note, does this could well mean 'less commercials' but more pop-ups that take over half the screen sometimes and disrupt the flow of the underlying show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Writing on the wall for ISP as well
Somehow, I don't think Elon is going to play 'happy chum' with the rest of the industry and agree to price gouge. I think he'll want to compete on price and service, and you can queue up the ISP incumbents now with lawsuits and lobbyist written protectionist laws to make that as hard as possible, but it won't last.
I do get the warm and fuzzies imagining how Comcast execs will scream like gelded bulls when they have to compete at both TV AND internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's all about trade-offs
Reduced revenue over peak monopoly rents needs more than "clearly this isn't sustainable". Driving away the audience your advertisers pay you for? THAT's not sustainable!
Wondering how long before we start seeing a lot more "product placement" type ads, where, oh, Clark Kent brushes his teeth with Crest toothpaste, or he uses his blackberry phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's all about trade-offs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Writing on the wall for ISP as well
See this article (and others) about the FCC deciding at the last minute that a launch of a low-earth orbit internet test satellite was "unauthorized".
https://qz.com/1226962/an-unauthorized-satellite-launch-in-india-threatens-us-regulat ory-reform-in-space/
And ya, it's a WTF -- how does the FCC get authority over whether a satellite is launched or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's all about trade-offs
"What's remarkable is that all this is happening with viewer numbers that are astoundingly low compared to a couple decades ago"
Ah, but is it really surprising? There's a good argument that it's partly the lower ratings that have helped the quality here. If you only need to grab the attention of 10 million people rather than 30 million to be a success, you can take more risks and not have to dumb down the content so much. That leads to work that is less compromised, and thus potentially of higher quality than work that has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Similarly, it's far more common for shows to have shorter seasons nowadays. A show that might have absolutely had to have had 24 episodes per season to fit on a schedule a few decades ago. This led inevitably to filler episodes, clip shows and talent unable to commit to a long-running show as they'd not have the room to do anything else. Shorter seasons again means that not only do you get rid of the filler, but people don't mind jumping on to projects with shorter commitments.
The fact is, people have far more choice over the content they watch than they did 2 decades ago, as well as having far more choices outside of TV. Networks will never be able to recapture the numbers they used to have, but if they're clever about how they allocate their resources they don't need to either. The Walking Dead started with a 6 episode season but became an instant success, which I don't believe would have happened if they had to stretch to 24 inevitably mediocre episodes out of the door.
"Clearly this variety isn't sustainable with the total subscriber/viewer base on the wane."
I disagree, but there's many ways of looking at it. People who feel they are actually getting value for money will tend to pay more however, and obviously the days of forcing people to subscribe to bundles of channels they never watch and still pile on ads every 10 minutes are coming to an end.
"Alternately, studios can sell shows to a streaming service to be included in their programming bundle, or they can create their own streaming service."
They already do, especially internationally. It will be interesting to find out what happens with shows like Star Trek Discovery (used to try and attract people to CBS''s own service in the US, but sold to Netflix internationally), but the networks do have choices already. They just need to work out how to maximise profits, which may or may not happening with the networks as they currently are, be replaced by streaming model or a mixture of different approaches.
Besides, that's likely to be far better for both consumer and network than trying to find more ways to shoehorn annoying ads into schedules and forcing them to buy things they don't want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unfortunately this is the main point, time
The linked story says they'll lower the ad time, not the ad load... leaving an alternate possibility: "the Blipvert, a highly compressed advertisement [...], which [has] the unfortunate side effect of causing some viewers to explode."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's all about trade-offs
We have more eyeballs than ever but we also have more content being produced than ever. I do believe we are in a golden age but I also think it's about survival of the fittest. If you can produce good content for millions and earn millions and millions then good for you but if you can't make it good no amount of bitching and screaming will save you. This is what scares the legacy players. It's not easy on them anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's all about trade-offs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unfortunately this is the main point, time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i wonder how many customers they have lost because of this stupidity and how much money as well??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Solved the monarch's way: TV LICENSE RUTHLESSLY ENFORCED!
http://investmentwatchblog.com/whats-going-on-the-uk-is-now-a-no-go-zone-for-conservatives/
Appears to actually be from GOV'T: perhaps a UK serf will confirm. -- Oh, there's PaulT! Pontificating about American Cable, and the UK has THAT regime which you are subject to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Broken video
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Advertising-supportl clearly doesn't work for Spotify.
They are NOT being supported, that's central problem that caused yesterday's piece...
Just a silly non-sequitur that you made up. -- Masnick didn't even write this, BLIND TROLL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's all about trade-offs
Ads are one of the things that drove me away from PPV. Thing is that was 12 years ago. Today I no longer own a tv and don't want another in my house because of the way advertising has abused the customer.
I've found I love the peace and quiet and not being bombarded by commercials 24/7. As far as I am concerned, I will never again allow such back. I no longer have any loyalty to any show/brand/or franchise as a result and I like that.
Dropping the ads is a dollar short and a day late. I could care less about what is on tv, a movie, or some PPV. Nor will I ever return.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Solved the monarch's way: TV LICENSE RUTHLESSLY ENFORCED!
Yawn...
But, I do love the fact that you're bringing up both a government system that the UK rejected centuries ago and a TV licence that I am not subject to (since I no longer live there, which you should know by now since I've lived outside the UK since before I started arguing with your ignorant ass).
Even your attempts at insults come from a parallel universe. You'd have failed even if you weren't trying desperately to distract from the facts that, once again, the predictions made by the people you hate here were correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's all about trade-offs
I agree the metrics are wrong, but I'd say that the number of people who choose to use other entertainment sources mean that there's still less of them.
Not that it truly matters anyway, since the number of eyeballs is only relevant if you're depending on them for advertisers to pay you the maximum amount. Once funding is removed from depending on getting as many people watching as possible, the landscape changes.
I think what scares them is the same as the music industry - they were used to being the default entertainment for a couple of generations, and they don't know what to do now that they're not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Solved the monarch's way: TV LICENSE RUTHLESSLY ENFORCED!
No, I'm not going to click through, but the "no go for conservatives" claim is hilarious when referring to a country that's actually being run by the Conservative party as we speak! I'll agree they are fucking the country up royally, but that's because they are running it, not because they can't go there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
or there is this other model
where a network is getting millions & millions for 30 seconds, because the time is precious during that sportsball thing.
If you offer fewer slots, doesn't that mean you can get a better price for those slots? Not having to cut your ad to 5 seconds to be wedged in between 15 other ads promoting get rich quick schemes & wonder products for your home?
Imagine thinking of your customers are real people who really don't want shows to be 15 minutes long with the rest being ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Solved the monarch's way: TV LICENSE RUTHLESSLY ENFORCED!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tHIS TOOK how long??
MTV at one point hit over 40 min in 1 hour for commercials..
Then there is a problem..as MANY TV shows are based on this SAME Pattern..
10 min SHOW, 3-5 min Commercial..
Change this pattern and many shows will get Kinda OFF'..
Spend 1/3 of your life Sleeping..
Spend 1/3 of your life watching Commercials..
spend 1/3 WORKING..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tHIS TOOK how long??
Already noticeable on DVDrips---er, DVDs... several times an episode the screen fades to black, usually after a tense moment, and then the scene resumes. Anyway, the pattern's been changing gradually over time... go watch some pre-1980s series on "DVD" and you'll notice they're over 25/50 minutes long. Quickly checking a bunch of my series, 6 minutes of content go missing between 1980 and 1990 (when 44 is standard).
I didn't check the number of commercial breaks, but I feel like they're going up; as someone else noted, "bugs" appeared throughout the 90s, later becoming ads for upcoming shows, then general ads, and by 2010 advertisers are taking giant shits on top of whatever you're watching. Be thankful you can still see the tops of characters heads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Snail mail bootleg media and tell Pedowood to make the library more popular through lack of competition.
Take our manure spreaders to the theater parking lot and front entrance on Friday and Saturday nigh
We'll see ya there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Nice going, blue boy. You couldn't tell a sarc mark if it sodomized you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Writing on the wall for ISP as well
It might be excessively loud for anyone in the building, but for everyone else it will be a good day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's all about trade-offs
We are at the start of the golden age of video. We haven't even gotten to the point where you can simulate everything and have it look real. But that is neither here nor there.
In the beginning 3 or 4 media companies ruled TV. Then came cable and roughly 30 channels, which grew to hundreds of channels. It still wasn't much in the way of competition. Then YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc came into existence and the competition really began. During this time media companies were consolidating and growing so the profits kept coming in and growing. Now the consolidation has pretty much ended, and they are facing growing competition from everyone with a cellphone and Laptop. What they are beginning to see and react to is the fact that their slice of the total pie is shrinking and in 10-20 years will be insignificant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Little Too Late
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is why I left cable
I was watching a movie on some network, there was a commercial break, the movie came back on for 7 minutes before another commercial break. I had DVR at the time so I rewound it to see, I was just in shock. Then there's the price; sure you can have TV service for $80 a month but you can't watch it without this box that's not included in the price. More than one tv, sure, HD, of course, what you want to record too, we would be happy to tack that on the price for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]