Have you noticed the flood of anti-cord cutting stories in the last few weeks? I sure have, and I will do my best to take them on.
The old saying of “people will attack those who they are afraid of” seems to be appropriate as cable companies and a host of media sites have recently launched an intense anti-cord cutting push. Sites such as AdvertisingAge, USA Today, Refinery29, New York Times, and MSN have all launched attacks on cord cutting. Most recently the attacks have mainly tried to push the idea that cord cutting is not less expensive than pay TV. (You can find my most recent reply to these posts HERE.)
Twice I have been asked to help with anti-cord cutting stories. For the first a Refinery29 post took my comments out of context. For the second I was asked by a writer to help write a story about the “hidden costs of cord cutting.” When I asked what they meant by “hidden costs of cord cutting” this is what the author said:
When I say hidden costs it’s in reference to two issues: the first being the fact that what seems like it should be cheaper than cable can quickly become as expensive or more; second is the cost of inconvenience, having to keep track of multiple services, different content on each one, etc. Since you obviously advocate for cord cutting, I’d love to get your thoughts on the best ways to go about doing so without getting overwhelmed.
You can see these posts all come from a clearly biased starting point. (Note: That was not the USA Today story, but it sounds like the exact same idea and this was sent to me a few days before the USA Today story went live.)
They often start off from an anti-cord cutting viewpoint, and I find that no matter how much evidence I provide they won’t change their minds.
Why are they doing this?
That is a hard question to answer. Some of these sites have clear financial ties to traditional cable TV models. After the most recent author asked me to help write an anti-cord cutting story, I researched the site he worked for and found out that its three main investors have ties to traditional pay TV. I asked the writer and the editor for comment on whether their investors had any influence on the story and haven’t received an official reply or any reply from the editor of the site after 7 days. (I’m withholding the name because they have yet to publish the story. If they do publish an anti-cord cutting story I will make sure to give it a full reply like I have done with the USA Today and the New York Times stories.)
Other sites also seem to have direct or indirect financial ties to traditional pay TV models. Some comes from firms that invest in them and once a member of their board of directors was a major cable network executive.
They all have denied any involvement by cable companies in their anti-cord cutting stories or have failed to reply to my request for comment; however, the similar line of attack and the recent flood of stories does make you scratch your head…
So what can you do about this?
First if you see an anti-cord cutting story use our Contact Us page to send me the link. That allows us to Second, if it has a comments section, make sure to leave a polite comment letting them know how you have saved money by being a cord cutter. (Remember to always be polite because being rude will hurt our efforts.)
If they don’t have a comments section, go to their social media and comment on the story. Let’s flood their stories with facts and first-hand accounts in a polite, respectful way.
Cable pays millions every year to promote cable. Let’s get out there and be the voice for cord cutters.
Need cord cutting tech support? Join our new Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.