Phillip Swann is president and publisher of TVPredictions.com. He has been quoted in dozens of publications and broadcast outlets, including CNN, Fox News, Inside Edition, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Financial Times, The Associated Press and The Hollywood Reporter. He can be reached at swann@tvpredictions.com or at 703-505-3064.
Click TVPredictions.com to read more news and features on TV technology.
Pay TV Has Lost 400,000 Subs? Hell, No!
By Swanni
Washington, D.C.
(August 3, 2012)
-- Yesterday, I
reported here
how a group of journalists unwittingly conspired to create the
mistaken perception that HBO was beating the 'cord cutters' and
experiencing strong subscription growth in the U.S. Today, I am
back with another sad tale of lazy, pack journalism and this
time its victim is the truth about Pay TV services in the U.S.
Reuters published an article yesterday under the headline:
'Americans Drop Pay TV; Business Matures in Weak Economy.' The
story was triggered by recent financial reports showing DIRECTV,
Time Warner Cable and Comcast combining to lose roughly 400,000
subscribers in the second quarter.
In fact, the article leads with a paragraph saying 400,000
Americans have dropped their pay TV services and a suggestion
that things will not get better for pay TV in this economy.
There is also some verbiage raising the possibility that
more and more Americans are 'cutting the cord' -- dropping pay TV and
watching online video to save money.
But here's the problem with the Reuters' thesis: While the
aforementioned cable and satellite operators did indeed lose
400,000 video subs in the second quarters, telco TV services
Verizon and AT&T, which are pay TV services, too, actually added
275,000 subscribers in the second quarter. So the actual loss of
pay TV subscribers in the second quarter was roughly 125,000,
not 400,000.
Considering that pay TV services are in about 85 million U.S.
homes, losing 125,000 -- which represents a small fraction of
one percent of their total audience -- hardly constitutes a
trend, much less a cold, hard fact that cord cutters are slicing
up the pay TV industry.
But that little fact was not enough to prevent a stampede of
pack journalists from rushing to their keyboards to pound out
even more alarmist fare. CNET.com, normally a beacon of common
sense, ran a story under this headline: "Pay TV Is On The Ebb As
Customers Cut the Cord." The CNET piece then misquoted the
Reuters story in the lead:
"A
look at the numbers shows that subscribing to pay-TV services is
on the ebb.
According to Reuters,
more than 400,000 TV watchers have "cut the cord" since January."
Reuters actually didn't say that. The wire service said 400,000
dropped cable and satellite services since January, not that
400,000 cut the cord of pay TV.
To make matters worse, the CNET story doesn't even mention that
AT&T and Verizon added 275,000 subscribers in the second
quarter, leaving the impression that the pay TV industry
actually lost 400,000 subs.
Judging from the story, the CNET writer seemed more dedicated to
pushing the 'cord cutting' angle than reporting all the facts.
"There
are tons of devices and Web sites that let people watch cable TV
shows and movies via the Internet without needing to subscribe
to a pay-TV service. This may be one of the reasons why
subscribers are dropping like flies..." the CNET article states.
But CNET wasn't the only one to go rogue on this issue.
Based on the Reuters report, BGR.com wrote an article saying
400,000 people have dropped pay TV services this year; the site
made no reference to the telcos picking up subs. The San Jose
Mercury News republished the Reuters story under the headline:
"Americans Are Cancelling Their Pay TV Subscriptions In Droves."
In droves, huh? 125,000 out of 85 million plus?
Ars Technica was one site that got it right. The tech pub noted
that the sub losses were small and it stressed in the second
paragraph that the telcos added 275,000 subs. So, kudos to Ars
Technica!
But Reuters? CNET? San Jose Mercury News? Shame on you, today.
Comment on this story below.
_______________________________________________________________________________
What do you think? Offer your comments below!
