| Displays Electronics |  |
Speakers Sources | |
Other Gear Software |
| How To Buy | |
How To Use | |
Tech 101 |
Forget cord cutting. “Cord shaving”—the practice of paring back cable subscriptions to a bare-bones bundle offering only a handful of network channels—is apparently the latest threat keeping cable TV execs up at night.
A new study from Pivotal Research Group reveals that cord shaving is starting to impinge on cable’s household penetration, which dipped 2.4 percent in the most recent Nielsen measurement period, according to a report in Media Life Magazine.
From the report:
“We view the data as illustrative of a broader trend of ‘cord-shaving’ and subscriber interest in increasingly skinny bundles, which is a more significant threat to cable network owners than the less pronounced reality of ‘cord-cutting,’” writes Brian Wieser, senior research analyst at Pivotal.Read the full article at medialifemagazine.com.Pivotal’s report notes that since 2014 there’s been an average 2 percent annual decline in household subscribers to individual networks.
That indicates cord shaving rather than cord cutting. The losses would be more severe if pay TV subscriptions were entirely abandoned.
It may be that people want to pay less but aren’t willing to part with pay TV entirely, since not everything you can get on cable is available online. For instance, you can’t watch cable networks’ content online unless you can verify that you’re a subscriber.
Do you subscribe to cable and, if so, have you thought about paring back? Leave a comment.
COMMENTS
I am crying a river right now. Boo hoo hoo.
People will stop cutting or paring service when the service is actually valuable. 300 channels, 280 of which I do not want, for $80-plus? No thanks.
I cut cable in 2006. I've never looked back. If there were legitimate options for broadband outside of Comcast in my region, I'd jump ship faster than you can say "bundle upgrade."
My two year commitment to DirectTV ends next month then, adios.
My wife and I are strongly considering cutting out our DirecTV this summer (after we watch all the crap on our DVR). Basically, we pay something like $130 per month for the service, but only watch a handful of channels.
The problem is that cable and satellite companies are still acting like this is 1995 when their offerings were the only entertainment in town. Back then, "most channels" was a legitimate bragging right to attract business. Not so much anymore as people spend more time on the internet and less on TV watching. Rather than bundling large groups of channels together to subsidize channels that all of five people watch, the providers need to unbundle the channels and offer a la carte selection. Maybe such a move would keep me from jumping ship.
We had cable growing up, but I've not once paid for cable in the 20+ years I've been on my own, nor do I have any desire to whatsoever.
I received a letter in the mail. It was addressed to me personally, handwritten, with a personalized return stamp from somebody I didn't know. It looked like a wedding invitation. When I opened it up, it was a freaking Direct TV offer.
I was so very close to writing Direct TV a letter, informing them that their approach is wrong. Getting me to open and look at a cable ad isn't going to get me to buy cable service. I don't want it. I don't care if they offer to wash my car for a year or mow my lawn; Cable providers have nothing to offer me.
This is my 3rd year unplugged and I'm very happy with the choice.
I've been watching TV shows mostly on Blu-ray. How does Nielsen count me? And a very few shows by streaming. I tend to binge watch
So:
I've viewed in much higher quality, unmatched/unmatchable by cable or sat.
I've saved about $1800 so far.
I've built a blu-ray collection of TV shows, yes most come via Netflix but I purchase too.
Even if I had to pay full retail for BDs and Neflix doubled the price of disks by mail I'd still be money ahead and viewing in unmatched quality. I don't see how cable and sat can compete with that.
Cheers,
...I don't shave the channels (not that it's humanly possible to watch every show on every channel). I shave on the added crap that you don't need like STBs, DVRs, and routers - you know, all the rental add-ons.
How do I do it? By utilizing the home network, existing systems / hardware, and an HDHomeRun Prime (with a CableCARD), am able to get ALL of the subscribed channels to ALL 5 HDTVs in the house. We save around $50/mo by virtually eliminating all rental fees. Plus we get to watch (and record) on MORE devices than just the TVs. Check it out:
http://www.silicondust.com/products/hdhomerun/prime/
Besides, until there's a way to watch U.S.-mainstream sports live, I'll continue to be a subscriber. (Must not be many sports fans on this site - well, at least not responding to these types of posts, anyway.)
Exactly, I too use HDHomerun Prime and computer based DVR on all TVs, but you're right, most readers here are into movies/ gaming..etc, and definitely not sports fans, but like you I cannot give up live sports! I do have OTA antenna though, so I could still get local sports w/o cable, but when Comcast gives you something like a 100 channels or so for $5 more than what they're charging for the high-speed internet, you're no cutting the cord to save $5
Every few years I keep pairing down my pay tv options. Once upon a time I had every premium channel and NFL package, now I am 1 up from the bare minimum and thinking about changing down to the minimum soon. There are probably 10 channels i really watch and another 10 I like but wouldn't pay for independently. From what I under stand the worst offender is ESPN, they force cable companies to carry all their channels in basic packages at an exorbitant prices. I am not ready to cut the cable but I continue to shave it for sure.
| Displays Electronics Speakers | |
Sources Other Gear Software | |
Top Picks of the Year Top Picks | |
Custom Install How To Buy How To Use | |
Tech 101
|
|
Latest News Features Blogs | |
Resources Subscriptions |
WHERE TECHNOLOGY BECOMES ENTERTAINMENT
© 2025 Sound&Vision
