gig em 02 said:
Buck Compton said:
They're saving right now. No arguments from me. But overall, anyone who has cut the cord already is an early adopter.
And for right now, they're either streaming ESPN illegally or sharing a log in or else not watching sports.
More and more content providers will offer their own service in the future and won't have content on Netflix, etc. (e.g., Disney). More and more companies will crack down on sharing accounts. Internet prices will rise.
Prices will necessarily be higher if you consume the same variety of content. If you don't consume the content, then more power to you, you'll save money. I know there are channels hardly anyone watches, but those aren't the focus to me.
???? YouTube tv has a bunch of Espn channels for $40/month.
6 different accounts that you can access anywhere.
How do you crackdown on sharing accounts when you are already limited to the number of people that can be watching on your account at one time? Are you saying that no one else besides the initial user is allowed to watch any content on that stream?
Your comments seem to be very very outdated, are you a tv antenna salesman from the 50s?
Well, snark aside, I actually work with several of these companies now on market strategy and industry KPI benchmarking. Both the content producers and providers. I'll literally be at Youtube's HQ on Monday. I have "cut the cord" myself. So chill out a bit. I'm just saying these companies aren't going to voluntarily leave money on the table for content.
The amount of money you save is directly dependent on the amount of content you choose to no longer receive. That's the driver behind cord cutting. YouTube has just restricted the bundle size. But it's still a bundled provider. The only "cord cutting" there is choosing a different provider and method of delivery for fewer channels at marginally less money (compare that $40 to a bundled Uverse price of $75 that includes internet). Now, taking this specific example, YouTubeTV also offers a ton of additional functionality - unlimited DVR, easy to move to a new house without an ally, etc. which is what will drive their adoption.
You're making the mistake of projecting current pricing and use structure out into the future. YouTube TV is aggressively trying to capture market share. They're doing that by leading on price. Heck, they already hiked their prices early in 2018. Amazon will continue to raise prime price. Netflix has increased price while their selection toon has decreased. Why do you think they started producing content? So when other providers pull their own, they still offer unique value.
I'm using ESPN because we're on a sports website. Say ESPN continues to lose viewership due to cord cutting. Instead of offering it on YouTubeTV, why wouldn't they just beef up WatchESPN and make it an exclusive subscription service, similar to what their parent company Disney is doing? No longer will be offered on Netflix, etc. So if you want that content, it's another monthly fee. And many younger people who consider themselves cord cutters aren't on YouTube or sharing accounts in the same household, they're using their parents login, etc. to WatchESPN or HBO, Netflix, etc. That's where the cracking down will occur. I simply used ESPN as an example.
Look at what HBO and Showtime did for cord cutters. If you produce in-demand content, people will pay a la carte prices. I'm simply predicting that more content providers will break out and offer their own service. And that people who consume a lot of varied content will end up paying more for unbundled content - that's just economics. Plenty of people who don't watch but a few channels will save money. But services like YouTube TV aren't going to operate at a loss - it's just another bundling service that you don't have a negative brand image of. They're still negotiating group rates on your behalf, and aren't truly "cord cutting" except that it's not a traditional cable company.