Vox Joins Growing Chorus Of Outlets Weirdly Crapping On Cord Cutting

from the cheaper,-more-varied-options-really-suck dept

"Recently, Gizmodo ran the numbers and concluded that if you subscribed to every streaming service collecting most of the TV shows and movies you’d likely want to see (and thus excluding niche services like horror-centric Shudder or anime-centric Crunchyroll or etc., etc., etc.), your monthly bill would be more expensive than an average cable bill on its cheapest tier."

"So there’s going to be a lot of demand for some form of bundling — of an option to subscribe to a bunch of streaming services, both mainstream and niche together — in packages that will be slightly more affordable than ordering each service a la carte. And when it comes to bundling, the cable companies know it better than anybody else."

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

For a few years now there's been a lazy trend among reporters analyzing "cord cutting," or the practice of leaving legacy cable TV for streaming alternatives. Usually the narrative goes something like this "cord cutting is (stupid/failing/irrelevant/on the ropes) because users need to subscribe tostreaming video services to get the same amount of content they used to get with cable." Despite these stories popping up pretty much constantly these reports miss a few key points, the biggest being thatthat comprises the traditional cable bundle.Gizmodo recently ran one such article where the author was shocked and outraged after he discovered that subscribing to four different streaming services cost him a measly forty-seven bucks, proof positive in the author's estimation that cord cutting "isn't a bargain any more." And while Reddit users were quick to point out how cord cutting saves them significant cash every month , this narrative never seems to die. Case in point is Vox, which appears to have piggybacked on the Gizmodo report with a similar story proclaiming that "cord cutting is bound to fail" Again though, Gizmodo didn't "run any numbers." The author just subscribed to HBO Now, CBS All Access, Netflix and Hulu and thought (incorrectly, if you ask actual cord cutters ) that the $47 total was incredibly expensive. Analysts oddly forget that the same companies setting licensing rates for traditional cableAs such, pricing for both is probably going to be higher than anybody would like, and that's why Hulu, Amazon and Netflix are feverishly developing original content.But the fact remains that streaming alternatives offer something cable refuses to: more flexibility at a lower price point. Vox's central thesis is that because cable providers have all the leverage in negotiations with broadcasters, they can strike much better deals than streaming video providers, offering their own dirt-cheap bundles of streaming packages:But because the cable industrydo this doesn't mean theydo this. Yes, your cable provider could offer cheap bundles of streaming services. But this would cannibalize their existing legacy TV cash cow subscriber base, and the sector has made it abundantly clear it simply refuses to seriously compete on price. Instead, industry executives would rather pretend that cord cutting isn't a real problem , and defections will cease once Millennials have more babies . As a result the closest we've seen to price competition are skinny bundles that give the illusion of value, but saddle users with hidden fees.If there's one thing the Vox report gets right, it's that consumers are growing increasingly frustrated with and confused by exclusive, temporary licensing and vanishing streaming catalogs. But that brings us to something all of these analysts and reports willfully, hysterically ignore: piracy. You'll note that none of the "cord cutting is dying" articlesacknowledge that piracy exists as an option for the consumer frustrated by high prices, poor service or confusing exclusivity arrangements. It's as if these authors are not formally allowed to acknowledge piracy's existence by their editors becauseBut as this website has noted repeatedly,. Because youdoesn't make it less true. The reality is that if streaming begins to fail the consumer as a cheaper, more flexible alternative to cable, the last place many of these customers will be headed is back to cable. Instead, countless millions will simply hide behind a VPN and head back to piracy, a shame given the progress we've collectively made in dragging many of these broadcasters, kicking and screaming, into the modern age.

Filed Under: cable, cable tv, cord cutting, tv

Companies: vox