TV1

Taking on More Bad Anti-Cord Cutting Propaganda: No, Cord Cutting Is Not Overblown


Cable TV

Correct: Mr Scott contacted Cord Cutters News to state that he does not work for Marcom. Our statement about Mr Scott working at Marcom came from his bio on THE DRUM as seen in the image below. We apologize for any confusion and have updated the story.

Anti-cord cutting propaganda is nothing new and has been around since day one. What is new is a new attack on cord cutting.

In the past the arguments went “it’s not happening” and more recently “you can’t save money as a cord cutter.” Now they have a new argument that is “cord cutting is being overblown into something bigger than it really is.”

It seems they can no longer deny that cord cutting is happening, but they just want you to think it’s not as big as you would think.

The most recent post about this comes from THE DRUM and is called “TV is not dying—it’s lies, damn lies and bad media statistics.”

His argument seems to be two main points. First he pushes the idea that since ad-supported TV is still around it’s not dying. “Call me crazy, but ad-supported television still seems to be around.”

The second argument seems to be around the idea that 86% of video ad spending was on live television.

So let’s take these on.

Let’s take a look at this idea that most video ad money is spent on live TV…

That argument instantly falls apart as soon as you consider the fact that most cord cutting services such as Netflix do not play any ads. So, of course, there is no ad money being spent on Netflix when they don’t take any ad money.

You also miss the fact that ad money is moving from video to digital. Just last month digital advertising surpassed TV for the first time ever

I could keep going on that point, but I think we have said all we need to.

Let’s look at this idea that cable TV is still alive so it must not be dying…

Just because cable TV is not 100% dead today does not mean it’s not dying. When someone says it’s dying they do not mean it is dead or they would have said it’s dead.

No matter how you look at it ad-supported TV is slowly dying. Subscriber numbers are dropping, and we have even seen several networks shut down this year.

For now maybe it is best that we let them live in denial. The longer they try to ignore cord cutting the stronger we get.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more news, tips, and reviews.

Need cord cutting tech support? Join our new Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.

  • Joseph ewing

    “Call me crazy, but ad-supported television still seems to be around.”

    Good. I hope it always is. I watch it every night on Playstation Vue.

    This guy misses the point. It’s not the “death of TV” that cord cutters want, it’s the death of the Cable TV monopoly on Live TV. If we can stream Live TV from other sources – and for less cash – then we win.

    I’ve got nothing against the Cable companies. They had a business model for decades that allowed them to make as much money as possible. And we had to pay for it.

    Now that the marketplace is changing, they’ll have to adapt or die. And if they ever provide a good enough – and cheap enough – plan, I’d return. But I won’t hold my breath.

    • donkey_kong

      It’s not even about less cash but about better value. I’m not going to pay ridiculous cable box rental fees, unwanted bundled service fees (like VoIP) and then get a metric #-ton of channels I never watch.

      Dropping cable was great and even now I am seriously considering dropping ps Vue because I rarely even watch that either. I may sign up for mlb online and buy the few shows I watch as standalone season purchases.

      • Damo

        I was always a cord cutter, over my forty years I payed for cable roughly one year. I found the internet to be a great way to entertain myself early on. Netflix and other services just make it more convenient. The cable companies were doomed as soon as the technology caught up with the desire.

  • filmex

    From yesterday’s New York Times:

    “Disney shares had reached $116 in April, near a 52-week high, but fell last week amid a sectorwide sell-off that was driven by a startling acceleration of cord cutting and reports by Time Warner, Viacom, AMC Networks and NBCUniversal of soft ad sales.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/business/media/disney-earnings-espn.html

  • stumpy579

    Another bloodsucking leech making his money off the old cable monopoly. His motives are too transparent. All I know is my basic cable was $90 a month for one tv and no dvr. I now pay $35 a month for Vue with up to 5 streams and cloud dvr and access to apps I did not get with cable and best of all none of that $35 goes to Samuel Scott.

    • Norman

      Here here. i gave you one thumb up and would have given more if the system allowed. I’m enjoying my float in the same boat you are. Big smiles for money saved.

    • Hello, I’m the Drum columnist who wrote the piece in question. I make no money off of cable and have no “dog” in this fight. See this copying of a comment of mine elsewhere in this thread:

      Point of accuracy:

      “This post comes from Samuel Scott, who happens to be a director at Marcom, an intelligent marketing management company that’s customers include the cable TV company COX.”

      I don’t know where you saw this, but I do not work for any company called Marcom. I am director of marketing and communications for Logz.io, a log management platform for IT professionals. What you wrote is completely wrong — see my bio at the bottom of my column.

  • Hello, I’m the Drum columnist who wrote the piece in question.

    Point of accuracy:

    “This post comes from Samuel Scott, who happens to be a director at Marcom, an intelligent marketing management company that’s customers include the cable TV company COX.”

    I don’t know where you saw this, but I do not work for any company called Marcom. I am director of marketing and communications for Logz.io, a log management platform for IT professionals. What you wrote is completely wrong — see my bio at the bottom of my column.

    • Camille M

      It’s right there in the heading of the Drum article. Maybe they meant marketing communications but it’s also the name of a company.

      • See above: It’s saying I’m a “former journalist and current marcom director and global marketing speaker.” The “marcom director” is short-hand for “director of marketing communications.”

    • Hello Samuel Scott that came from the bio at the top of your Drum story. (See attached image) I will add a update to the story saying you state that you do not work for Marcom. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3f2f58807e0d4b0084d625523d0fe3f118d246a142860044a0b3d6673d051e8c.jpg

      • It’s saying I’m a “former journalist and current marcom director and global marketing speaker.” The “marcom director” is short-hand for “director of marketing communications.”

        • Understood and the story has been updated with a correction and we removed the Marcom sections.