Don’t tell the Time Warner CEO that cable and satellite subscribers are fed up with rising prices, and tempted to replace them with some combination of free TV and Web services such as Netflix. Pay TV is “getting to be a better deal for consumers and a better deal in the opinion of consumers,” Jeff Bewkes told investors at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom conference. “Even in this recession, you don’t have cord cutting.” What’s more, TV viewing is up at a time when “you have increases in the quality and programming budgets of all these networks.” When companies including Time Warner Cable and Dish Network offer low priced packages with relatively few channels “nobody buys them.” And TV Everywhere will make consumers more attached to pay TV. “It’s all going on demand, on every Internet device you have for free because you have a subscription.” What if he’s wrong, and consumers want something cheaper? Time Warner will still be fine, Bewkes says. “We all know that the reason [prices are] up is the sports fee, it’s not anything else. Half of citizens don’t want that.” But 90% of his company’s affiliate fees come from four networks including TNT and TBS that are built around entertainment. If consumers want bundles without sports then “we’ll be in their bundles.” And low priced offerings would lower the threshold for subscribers to also subscribe to HBO. “That would be great for HBO,” Bewkes says.
He’s also not concerned that Web streaming services will pose a serious threat — even though he says that Netflix’ political drama House Of Cards is “pretty good.” The Internet company and others including Amazon and Hulu “can’t afford to buy all of the live programming” or popular, non-serialized syndicated shows such as sitcoms that drive TV ratings. “You know the numbers. They can’t go that far.” If the newcomers do become more powerful, Time Warner could adapt — even if it meant giving up the $350M it collected last year from subscription VOD. “These contracts are short term, so they can be recalibrated,” he says. Could he envision a day when Time Warner networks go online? “It would have to be economically accretive to us,” he says. “And so far, nobody’s done it.”

But I won’t if you bring back Enlightened..
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I just switched today from service electric as 3 paly for $120.00 with dvr & hd
has gone up to $165.00
bsbsbsbsbssbs
they’re cocky now until it happens.
He couldn’t be more wrong. I love TV, and for years have paid for a Time-Warner cable package loaded w/pretty much all they offer. But the price keeps going up at percentages that are unconscionable, and at the same time service quality issues (bad reception, no reception) customer service issues (interminable waits on hold to talk with reps who are rude) and repair issues (field techs who can fix nothing) proliferate. So guess what, Mr. Bewkes? I just decided to bail. This longtime cable customer, whose bills are north of $3,000 a year is (!), is cutting the cord this week, turning in my cable boxes, walking away. I’ll stream some TV online now, catch up on my DVD screeners, and when all those logs are burned, maybe read a book or two. But I won’t be part of your revenue stream any more….and I doubt I’ll be the only long-suffering cable customer making that choice. So long!
We switched to ROKU because with digital cable, high speed internet and voice bundle plus the the bill I have to pay my cell phone company for four phones it was crazy expensive. There were growing pains at first with ROKU but now we love it and I just got a personal visit from my former cable company
The phrase ‘whistling in the dark’ comes to mind…
What he’s really saying is that there are plenty of old people still subscribing to cable. I don’t personally know a single person under thirty who has cable TV.
Very good posting.
…like Land Line phones verses Cell Phones.
It’s interesting, because my roommate’s dad is in town and we were showing him how we can watch everything we want online. And with things like TiVo, Roku, Apple TV, XBox, Playstation, etc, you can use those devices to stream the online shows. All the old people need is a demonstration, and they’re like, “Oh, whoa!”
Streaming or download “narrowcasting” makes it possible to have a worldwide market to support a show that could not make the ratings points within a single market. If a million people are willing to buy a season based on a sample episode that payment becomes the basis for making a show. If it is a twenty episode series/season for twenty dollars that’s a million dollar known income budget for each episode, so you can “do things right” and watch the added viewership if you perform well. Redefining the market is part of the answer, and thinking of it as your market being one person out of every seven thousand sounds small, but it means over a million people buying into your product when you have a total world population of over seven billion.
The future will be interesting, and it will be much like the introduction of television, too– no one believed people would really spend that much time staring at a box in their living room.
History is full of missed predictions.
wow. Bewkes is dead wrong. I know many people cutting the chord (and they’re not all under 30). I am at $155/mo now for cable/internet so I’m on the brink of cutting it myself. Geez … hard to be an in-touch CEO at $26mil/year.
Again, the focus is on subscription revenues. Advertising dollars is what’s about to collapse bc people don’t want to have their entertainment interrupted if they have the choice….and they do. The big advertisers know they’re not reaching the consumer thru traditional means and when they make the adjustment and move their dollars elsewhere the ecosystem with contract.
Agreed. The big advertisers prefer to advertise on VOD programming and online bc both forums do not allow the viewer to fast forward through commercials.
After finally “cutting the cord” this weekend from Time Warner, I find this incredibly hilarious. There’s no reason a regular cable bill, should cost $90 a month. Which is the straw that broke the camels back for me. Since almost everything I want to watch is available online, why do I need to pay $90 additional for the “convenience” of it.
Blockbuster said the same thing about Netflix in the late 90s. Look what happened there? TWC needs to change it’s model soon, because more people are going to get as fed up as I did. And I’m an easy sell. I don’t WAN’T to not have Cable TV. It’s just not a smart financially justifiable necessity anymore.
This sounds just like the sorts of things music execs were saying 10 years ago.
What he fails to realize is that the cord-cutters are not the population of people who watch TV for sports and bland network sitcoms. Those people will continue to watch traditional ad-supported TV as it continues to lose the younger, better educated cohorts that advertisers want to reach,
I quit watching cable TV about 3 years ago.
Dear Mr. Bewkes,
When you took over Time Warner several years ago, you came with the reputation of keeping a tight ship. Now that I no longer work for you, thanks to your cuts, I cannot afford your Time Warner service. So, just like you cut me loose 6 years ago, I’m cutting your Time Warner Cable service loose, because I run a tight ship with my pocketbook. You’re terminated.
(He’ll never read this, but that, in some small pathetic way, felt good)
Signed,
Ex-Employee
I work in the business and even I don’t have a cable or satellite subscription. I cut the cord three years ago and have mostly been happy about it. Yeah, it sucks that HBO won’t sell me HBO Go without a cable subscription, but I’m not paying $75 to $100 a month just so I can watch HBO and four other channels.
My phone company laughed at me years ago when I cut the cord and told them I didn’t need a land line.
Blockbuster laughed at me when I told them I would get all my movie rentals online.
Bewkes is laughing at consumers now. He thinks consumers are stupid and will suckle on the cable teat forever.
His arrogance about his overpriced product is only going to lead to more people cutting the cord. If he was innovative and came up with lower priced solutions for people who only watch a handful of channels, he might have a chance, but Bewkes is clearly not an innovator.
I cut cable years ago… realized no one was watching.. using NetFlix instead… in fact still number one in our house and the kids and us mostly us it for television shows! AND most networks put the episodes on internet.. if they don’t.. we don’t watch. That simple. Watch some on Hulu. $8 bucks a month sure as heck beats $75 for tv… too bad the networks went from free to charge. Their loss… the major networks will start to blend in with the cable losing viewers all the time. When Duck Dynasty beats Modern Family and American Idol.. that says a LOT!!!!!
The first stage is denial.
Bewkes either has his head in the sand and is choosing to read his data in a skewed way, or is just flat-out lying.
They need to get ahead of this or they’ll end up like the music industry.
He couldn’t be more wrong. I was paying $170 per month for Time Warner. I bought a Roku box, subscribed to Hulu and Netflix and now pay $16 for just about all the TV I was getting with TWC. The few shows I can’t watch can be watched online. TWC needs to get with this century and offer channels a la cart. I realize many customers fall into the 50 and up bracket. But good luck roping in the 30 and younger crowd. TWC is going to have a huge problem on their hands in 10 years if they don’t wake up soon.