Jump to content

Logo

Time Warner CEO says cord cutting limited to low income Americans

time warner

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

Poll: Cord Cutter Household Income (8 member(s) have cast votes)

Cord Cutter? What's Your Annual Income?

  1. $100,000 - $250,000+ (2 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. $80,000 - $99,999 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. $50,000 - $79,999 (1 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  4. $30,000 - $49,999 (4 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  5. $23,051 - $29,999 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. $23,050 or below. (1 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 GeorgeB

GeorgeB

    Administrator

  • 161 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:21 PM

Interestingly enough, yet another content provider CEO expresses his lack of concern and one might say general disdain for cord cutters. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said of cord cutters Friday morning:

"cord cutting"is overstated and that the phenomenon is limited to a small segment of low income Americans.


Notice he even went so far as to say it's limited to a "small segment" of low income Americans. As if to say, "even most poor people aren't so poor they don't have cable!".

Now look, I'm sure he's going off of some market research they've done but the idea that they are trying to trivialize cord cutting by labeling it something that people only do because they're poor is insulting. Remember, they tried to say that about MP3 downloaders when that first took off so take this guy's statements with a grain of salt.

My family and I aren't rich by any means but we're not low income either. Ironically, when we were low income, we were cable subscribers.

So what about you? Are you a cord cutter? If so do you live in a household that would be considered low income by American standards? Note that the poverty level in America during 2012 was set at $23,050 annual income for a household of 4.

Please take a second to select an answer in the poll. All answers are completely anonymous.

Read the full article with his statement here.

OTA Antenna: Mohu Leaf (signal to all home TVs via Motorola Signal Booster)
Streaming Devices: Roku 3, Roku 2, WDTV Live Hub (1TB w/ wireless N adapter), D-Link MovieNite
Game Consoles: Playstation 4, xBox One, xBox 360,Wii


#2 Sakarteti

Sakarteti

    Newbie

  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 10:05 AM

Its not all that surprising, income class warfare has been going on for some time and its not difficult to see which side is winning by a wiiiiide margin.  I see cordcutting as one of the last few ways of sticking it to the man, and with the tides of broadband going towards greater corporate control, the companies will do everything they can using their controls over data connections to mitigate their losses due to piracy.   



#3 caparica007

caparica007

    Newbie

  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 03:02 PM

We have come to a point where people don't have money to pay cable, so they cut it. I haven't come to that, but I have rationalized a lot of my expenses. Sure, on the other hand is quite true, why should you be paying for 100 channels when you only watch 5 or 10 of them? It's quite a nonsense... Also, with pc streaming cord cutting could mean that you can watch the same contents for free. ;)



#4 lovemwaf

lovemwaf

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 07:34 AM

I would actually say that most poor households are the ones that are more desperate for cable tv because that is most likely the single cheapest form of entertainment available to them and so are less likely to cut the cord even if they do not have a lot of money. The more money you have means that you can source out a lot more entertainment.



#5 OhioTom76

OhioTom76

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 11:42 AM

I know people making over $100k/year or close to it that either don't have Cable or Cable/Internet at all. His remarks are flippant and insulting. The whole Cable industry is on the verge of a complete sea change and they are still clinging to old distribution models, which will be their downfall. Why in the hell would I want to pay over $100 or more per month for the privilege of 100 Kardashian spinoff shows, and Real Housewives garbage? Not to mention the average time of actual programming has shrunk dramatically over the years and over 45% of what you are watching is nothing more than commercials, whose volume is jacked up by the Cable provider and ultimately even spawned the CALM act to address how disruptive they've become? The bottom-feeding "reality show" garbage programming they offer is a waste of money, period.



#6 brutal37138

brutal37138

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:24 PM

Well, that may be true, but MOST Americans are low income nowadays.  Cable TV has become a disposable commodity and its easily replaceable.  While the CEO may be pointing the finger in the right direction, he's still losing customers...  I for one don't see a point in paying the high price for the large quantity of commercials and reruns.  Americans want less commercials and fresh content...



#7 FloraFauna

FloraFauna

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:35 PM

While it makes sense for lower income families to cut the cord, there are people out there like myself who simply find cable archaic in regards to pricing. I haven't missed anything that I have wanted to see since I cut the cord. I can find it online, I can stream. Paying a hefty price only made sense when cable was the sole option. 



#8 Astdua

Astdua

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:16 AM

The mistake here is to assume that all cord cutter households are low-income, instead of "some cord cutter households are low-income". As time goes by, even the richest people are streaming their media from a device for free, because no matter your income, saving some cash by paying for outdated services is silly. 



#9 Tara

Tara

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:02 PM

Funny. I cut the cord from Time Warner a few months ago. I also happen to live two blocks from Time Warner Cable!  I know plenty of middle class people who have cut the cord from Time Warner. It's the main carrier in my area. Some have switched to online streaming and other have made the jump to satellite.

 

To ignore cord cutter is unwise and foolish. It's a trend that will only continue to grow.



#10 charahome

charahome

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 08:10 PM

By standards, I am not a low income family member. Either way, I have been without cable tv. for many years. 

Even when the kids were growing up, I would disconnect cable if they were too absorbed into watching TV. 

For one, they offer too much junk, they cost too much, and their content is too explicit. 







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users