AT&T's Massive TV Losses Continue as Another 900,000 Customers Flee (arstechnica.com) 103
AT&T lost another 897,000 premium TV subscribers in Q1 2020, as the DirecTV owner's string of massive customer losses continued. An AT&T executive today said the company is moving ahead with a company-wide cost-cutting program. From a report: AT&T's earnings announcement today said the 897,000-customer net loss reduced the total number of premium TV subscribers to 18.6 million. AT&T said the latest customer loss was "due to competition and customers rolling off promotional discounts as well as lower gross adds from the continued focus on adding higher-value customers."
Cut the Cord (Score:2)
"AT&T said the latest customer loss was due to consumers realizing that they could 'cut the cord' and save 50% on TV viewing costs."
Oh, wait. They did not say that.
So, they are lying or stupid.
Pick one.
Re:Cut the Cord (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T cant make FOX/MSNBC/CNN/etc shape up.
AT&T cant make MTV/A&E/Discovery/SyFi produce something other than reality TV and low-grade conspiracy/alien/ufo/ice fishing documentaries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not to mention the never-ending "Chicken scratch on some first century latrine demonstrates Jesus was the Son of God" garbage.
Why? (Score:2)
Why do channels like History need to sink this low? Are they trying to compete with the Lowest Common Denominator garbage being passed around by the uneducated masses on Facebook?
If I am going to pay money (and still be tracked one way or another), I expect quality, educational content. Otherwise I might as well save my money and shlep up the garbage on FB.
Re: (Score:2)
It got them more viewers.
Re: (Score:1)
So basically profit and fuck everything else. As long as people can stay dumb and they get their chocolate ration.
Empires fall this way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a television channel. It's the same reason why Court TV became Tru TV. History Channel actually has a legit History Channel (H2, though it may have some dreck as well) where you can go to watch programming somewhat-similar to what used to be on the old History Channel.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do channels like History need to sink this low?
Because it is damned expensive having various people dig through documents, chase down various people to do interviews, schedule interviews with various experts, travel to various places around the world to get footage. Oh and the video is done with top of the line video equipment (the stuff so expensive if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it). Then compile all that into an hour long program that is cohesive from start to finish and engage the viewers (with a remote, it is very easy to change th
Re: Why? (Score:1)
"These days just show up at one place in Las Vegas, hang out at the store all day long or week, get various footage "
"I loved the old history channel, there are some of these on youtube. Amazed they would track down former Soviet officers who were on station during a crisis with the Americans and we can hear their own point of view."
Step back and ponder what you wrote for a moment. This huge drop in quality and content is simply mind boggling. :\
I wonder when History started hurting hard for cash?
Re: (Score:3)
Months ago, when they did not offer the SCI channel on my package, the SCI channel actually had some science.
It popped up on my package (I have option of DirectV or nothing, been on it since '05), and now SCI channel is nothing but crypto-history, nazis, aliens, and faux-exciting mysterious abandoned places.
Spectrum is coming to the area soon (world's smallest 'wooooo-yeah')
Re: (Score:1)
"It popped up on my package (I have option of DirectV or nothing, been on it since '05), and now SCI channel is nothing but crypto-history, nazis, aliens, and faux-exciting mysterious abandoned places."
This explains all of the garbage I have been hearing come out of people's mouths over the past 10 years.
cost versus viewers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. They are cheap to produce and as long as they can squeeze out "passable" entertainment, they will do it as long as possible.
They won't ignore the bottom line, though, if they start losing viewers, they will change eventually. Unfortunately there are enough bored idiots out there they can go for 10+ years before people start to get a clue/get sick of their shit.
The only hope left at the moment is the Smithsonian channel; they are what SCI or History used to be 5-10 years ago, and are still ma
Re: (Score:2)
How about they show content, instead of what feel like breaks between commercials?
Last time I saw an episode on the History Channel the format was:
- announce what is coming up through the episode
- some content
- announce what is coming up after the break
- break
- announce what went before
- some content
- announce what is coming up after the break
- break
Rince repeat. By the end of the episode
Re: Cut the Cord (Score:2)
The best thing to do to get good History Channel content is to go in YouTube and stream their old pre 2000s shows.
Ghost Adventures (Score:3)
You gotta see Ghost Adventures on Travel Channel. I kid you not. A decade ago, Travel Channel was onto something good with the glorious trio of Andrew Zimmern, Anthony Bourdain, and Adam Richman. But these days, their idea of travel is reduced to a reality show about haunted houses.
Re: (Score:1)
But these days, their idea of travel is reduced to a reality show about haunted houses.
Our Glorious Leader's cunning plan to reduce your people to sniveling idiots has triumphed!
Well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Television is on its way out, not because of cost, but because of content.
It's actually both. Because plenty of people love shitty content. All that reality TV is popular for a reason.
I'd say cost is actually the bigger culprit. Joe and Jane American are largely fine with the Idiot Box. They just don't like paying $250 a month to get it (the usual post-discount prices for the Net-TV-Phone bundles + premium channels).
The increasing cost of Cable has forced people to go "OK, I like these shows, but not enough to pay THAT much for them".
Re: (Score:1)
"It's actually both. Because plenty of people love shitty content. All that reality TV is popular for a reason."
This is because of conditioning. Not many people wanted to be known as a "nerd" or a "know it all" in school, and it sticks throughout adulthood. Usually now the message is "You are just a cog in the machine and you are going to die some day, so why bother?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Cut the Cord (Score:2)
Re: Cut the Cord (Score:1)
"Remember that DEMAND is what drives ALL television content. Without demand"
But who demanded it? This is more like "The CEO needs to buy a Ferrari and a pony for his daughter for Christmas. So we are going to go cheap, and still make the money we did before and more. We will start shovling our new cheap low grade crap down your throat and you will LIKE it!"
Youtube is basically a reality TV website, and you can get videos on any subject, no matter how obscure, and without a bunch of 20 somethings interjectin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, it's AT&T—do we really need to pick only one?
Re: (Score:1)
It's also that content providers have made the cost too high but also cheaper.
Let me explain...
To get all the movies you used to get for $50, you now must pay $200.
But.. to get just the 3 channels you do want costs $28.
You don't get a lot of stuff you *might* like. But you binge Legion and then in a few months change to the next service.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, consumers wanted to do that. It took a global pandemic for people to have enough free time to wait on hold to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
So given the option to change the formula or continue with the same one, they appear to go with the latter? Heck with so many locked indoors, to be losing people now should be even more alarming. In contrast services like Netflix see an increase in viewership.
Tech bubble pops... (Score:2)
"due to competition and customers rolling off promotional discounts as well as lower gross adds from the continued focus on adding higher-value customers."
I haven't seen anything like this since 2001...
$$$$ It's all about the money (Score:1)
American Telephone and Telegraph (Score:1)
AT&T was purchased by Southwestern Bell in the mid 2000s, who then rebranded themselves as AT&T.
They've been dropping customers like flies ever since.
If AT&T is going to survive (and it won't) it needs to provide evolutionary customer service, revolutionary products, and quit raising rates.
They are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve -- DirectTV consumers leaving proves it.
E
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T does not want DirectTV consumers--in 2018 they said they were done launching satellites: https://spacenews.com/directv-... [spacenews.com]
“I would say that AT&T’s buy of DirecTV had less to do with video distribution and more to do with owning content that they can leverage to drive their direct-to-consumer business,” Wagner said in an interview. “That big piece of content that DirecTV has is NFL Sunday Ticket. So AT&T’s strategy, along with their recent buy of Time Warner, is really to complete the vertical connection between content and the consumer.”
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that at the same time AT&T is done with satellites, SpaceX is launching satellites to provide streaming-capable internet to the rural areas that DirecTV is abandoning.
Re:American Telephone and Telegraph (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, nice!
Re: (Score:2)
They keep saying that and then they keep launching more satellites. [nasaspaceflight.com]
Re:American Telephone and Telegraph (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe ppl need food more than TV (Score:2)
Maybe that is part of the problem? Or maybe AT&T has poor service... I can believe that too.
No sports (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming platforms are still running eSports events and viewership is going up massively.
If they can retain that after real world sports start up again it could be the end of high priced sports packages. Maybe the sports themselves will move to streaming as well, forced to compete with much lower cost eSports.
Racing in games is often much more interesting than racing in real life these days. F1 is a good example. Due to the huge sums of money involved it's always the same teams and drivers in the lead and
Re: (Score:2)
Tremendous (Score:5, Funny)
You've got to admit, it's an impressive feat for AT&T to lose almost a million TV subscribers during a time when people are forced to stay at home and have nothing else to do but watch TV.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but also understandable. They are far more likely to try using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is the ~24M recently unemployed decided a $250/month cable bill may be a smidge high and would rather eat and have electricity.
My reason (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there are no live sports these days thanks to the coronavirus. :(
People still pay for TV? (Score:2)
Executive level blindness (Score:2)
The only folks who didn't see this coming are the fools who bought DirecTv in the middle of the cord-cutting revolution.
They're high paid lemmings who saw everyone else doing it, so they had to do it too.
The very same fools who gambled ( and lost $4B ) in the failed T-Mobile merger.
The very same fools who think HBO Max is going to be their Golden Goose. ( It won't )
The very same fools who think AT&T Tv is going to somehow be the answer to those leaving cable / satellite subscriptions.
They can't ( or re
i bet i know why (Score:2)
Die, AT&T, die! (Score:2)
ATT ought to just do what bellsouth used to do (Score:3)
No more "promos" just simplified fair pricing and packages. If you want a lower price you commit to 12 months but everyone is paying the same price for that 12 month package both new and existing customers. Its the smoke and mirrors crap that alienates customers. ATT should sell reliablity and reasonable cost, if someone wants more channels sell it to them but dont force it on them.
Here's why I did it. (Score:3)
Then they changed the name to AT&T TV. Little changed other than the name and logo, or at least that's what I thought until I was forced into a new package that was the same price as the one I started with, but was missing a third of the channels. They even had the nerve to list them as unsubscribed, but were not actually available on any service tier and could not be subscribed to separately.
The other day, I discovered that the service had been renamed yet again, to AT&T TV Now, my package yet again ceased to exist and had again been replaced by one slightly more expensive. I wanted to dig into this and perhaps yell at someone (catharsis) but discovered that whatever was now called AT&T TV was unrelated to what I had (including my creds) but all the support and account links from AT&T TV Now still went to AT&T TV. At this point, I decided that AT&T did not now and would not ever have its shit together, and I wanted no part of it anymore. After a shocking amount of searching (had to go back to google) I found a customer support number. Posted hours 8AM to Midnight. Of course, this was incorrect and no humans were available at 8PM. I ended up canceling from the website. Despite the account staying live through another month (one decent thing they did was stop charging during the crisis), I immediately signed up for Hulu Live even though it's going to cost me more once I have to transfer HBO.
TL;DR - AT&T does not have its shit together and is thus not worth doing business with unless you need lines run to an office building or a cell phone. But don't bother calling, they don't have accurate internal phonebooks, so if they have to transfer you to a different department, your call is done.
I don't know what ATT saw in Directv (Score:2)
Directv was dying before they began negotiations.
DTV had already begun the less content for more money path, and was alienating customers on a wholesale basis.
So what was the carrot? I can't believe the bean counters were wearing blinders.
They can be counting on morphing it into something else as that will certainly cause more bleeding.
What did they spend all that money on?
Kudo's to DirecTV for pulling off a Bill Gates style epic shyster move unloading a turd in exchange for gold.
I was a customer only becau
SWEET! (Score:1)
Got an IRA? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the point of this post? Is what's really needed in the discussion is ageism?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of this post? Is what's really needed in the discussion is ageism?
This is actually a legitimate explanation for their continued losses. Old people aren't as likely to be watching Hulu or Crunchyroll.
My own parents (in their 80s) would still be paying $150/mo for DirecTV if my older brother hadn't set them up with Roku box and SlingTV.
Funny thing about that though, is my Dad usually just watches YouTube on it. He never learned to use a computer and hadn't ever experienced it before last year.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is actually a legitimate explanation for their continued losses. Old people aren't as likely to be watching Hulu or Crunchyroll."
No it's not. People have diverse habits, regardless of age. The fact that one age group is more or less "likely" does not make the "explanation" "legitimate".
"My own parents (in their 80s) would still be paying $150/mo for DirecTV if my older brother hadn't set them up with Roku box and SlingTV.
Funny thing about that though, is my Dad usually just watches YouTube on it. He
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the point of this post? Is what's really needed in the discussion is ageism?
WTF? Ageism? Different generations have different preferences, as a whole. Google is successful because they can target ads by age, among other things. It's hardly a controversial statement!
This is well known for cable TV. The older generations are sticking with it, GenX and older Millennials are gradually shedding it as the years go on, and Zoomers and younger Millennials see no point in cable TV in the first place, as it's not on their phone. Again, hardly shocking news.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because you are too ignorant to recognize your own prejudices doesn't mean they don't exist. Here it is again:
"All the Boomers I know still watch cable TV, or DirectTV. Is this just continued GenX cord cutting, I wonder? Of course, once the Boomers start dying off that will be 5% per year, but it's probably 5 more years of Boomer-death-ramp-up before it gets there."
This is pure, unadulterated ageism. Not all "boomers" "watch cable TV" and not all GenXers are "cord cutters". Wake up.
AT&Ts busines
Re: (Score:2)
Also, DirecTV is not just satellite, it is a streaming service...you know, for GenXers apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously not know what a marketing demographic is? Nah, you're just trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Look who's calling someone a troll!
Yes, a "marketing demographic" is your punchline to toss an insult at old people.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you are that stupid. No where did I insult old people. No where did I say "all Boomers". Statements about a group of people are generalizations, that it, they are statistical statements about the behavior of that group.
For example, Boomers are statistically keeping cable around. GenX is statistically "cutting the cord". These are just graphs of purchasing behavior over time. The fuck is wrong with you in the head?
Re: (Score:2)
What really turns this into ageism are the labels. It really makes it feel like them vs us issue. We can talk about people above a certain age or below or certain age and it actually has more credibility. As soon as the labels get added, then a lot of people start going on the rampage.
If we talk about labels, then ‘Gen X’ is often on the sidelines eating popcorn, while being largely ignored. Well they are either eating popcorn or trying to make peace with the two camps.
There are also ple
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and read it again. "All boomers I know..." (therefore must be all boomers) "still watch cable" (so it can't be them)... (so) "is this just continued GenX cord cutting" (it has to be GenX because they are cord cutters and boomers are not) "once the Boomers start dying off that will be 5% per year" (because all boomer watch cable)
It is plain as day. Maybe you just didn't take the time to read it.
Re: (Score:1)
Ageism now has a chorus here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the collective critical consensus is that the past 20 years has been a "golden age" of scripted television.
Maybe its just you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wow, 5% (Score:1)
"Idiocracy was supposed to remain humorous, not serve as a warning. Clearly people need to be warned!"
Like "1984", "Idiocracy" is being used as an instruction manual. Keep most of the masses stupid, fat, happy, and DISTRACTED, and you and the other members of your corrupt regime won't have to worry about your heads dropping into the wicker basket.
Re: (Score:2)
20 years is a long time, and 1995-2015 is probably the better 20-year window. Wasn't in Bablylon 5 that established that multi-season story arcs could actually work, that TV didn't have to be purely episodic? B5 was written for binge-watching before we had a word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You think B5 invented the Soap opera? Sorry, but serial had existed for at least 50 years by then.
Hell, there was even a show called "Soap" in the late 70s that was a parody of serial TV shows and concurrent with it there was show called "Dallas" that you may have heard of. Since you claim to be an old GenXer, you would have been in your teens by then, what's your excuse?
Perhaps you should ask those "Boomers" you like to denigrate, maybe they know something you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should ask those "Boomers" you like to denigrate, maybe they know something you don't.
OK, Boomer. But you have yet to show where I'm "denegrating" them, unless you consider "still has cable" to be a vile insult (in which case, fair enough).
Re: (Score:1)
My Boomer parents just don't know another way. They have the ability to watch YouTube and NetFlix, but they don't, they watch cable and pay-per-view, because they're just that used to that model.
As an older GenX, I don't watch TikTok, because it's phone-only. I can't imaging watching stuff on my phone screen. (Well, I wouldn't watch TikTok anyhow, because it's controlled by the Chinese government, but that's not the point.)
In another 20 years, it will be my generation dying off, and taking "web sites" wi
Re: (Score:3)
"SciFi as a genre is dead. Again, juvenal crap! Want real acting and good story writing, please see STNG, DS9 and B5."
"Sad, but true."
I'll assume you mean sci-fi on broadcast TV, because there's some good stuff on streaming services - e.g. Altered Carbon, Beforeigners.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the Expanse. But it's mostly gritty dark-future stuff where the characters aren't very smart, and can't do much to fix their situation. Dystopian stuff. It's something, I guess, but that was never a big part of SF.
Still, once special effects are no more expensive than talking heads, and no more interesting, I expect the return of good writing as that's what's keeps people paying. At least, we're already seeing this arc with comic books as the old model dies out to be replaced with crowdfunded
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Altered Carbon was okay but I felt it didn't really live up to the books. A TV show can never cover all the stuff in the book so it needs to capture the essential elements and it didn't quite get there. The second series was a bit of a mess too, would have been more interested if it had followed the 2nd book I think because it just rushed into the 3rd one without enough build up or backstory and then ignored most of the best bits anyway.
I'll check out Beforeigners. We just finished Picard which was pretty g
Re: (Score:3)
"My Boomer parents just don't know another way. "
"As an older GenX, I don't watch TikTok,"
"Well, I wouldn't watch TikTok anyhow, because it's controlled by the Chinese government,"
"...as younger Millennials and Zoomers don't seem to have much use for them..."
It appears you can't talk about anyone without sticking them in a bucket first, even yourself. Embarrassing. Never in my life have I expressed myself so ignorantly, and yet you are actually trying to say something here. Also:
"Having to watch a shared
Re: (Score:2)
Groups of people have statistically predictable behavior, which is why targeted marketing works and Google is worth a shocking sum. Is this news to you? You can certainly make accurate statements about groups of people regarding their consumer behavior; this has about the same mountain of evidence for it as evolution and general relativity.
Also, TikTok is explicitly controlled by the Chinese government, I'm not sure why you're bothered I'm point that out. I mean, I'm bothered that it's true, but that's a
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a boomer- mainly youtube and netflix.
My neighbors just graduated college. They have a big screen TV and pre covid19 used to have 6-8 people over watching shows every night.
Lot of awesome content on Youtube. History, Sci Fi- *real* Science ("let's have a think" is good), and good consumer info ("Project Farm" is just fantastic- Moustrap Mondays is great)..
Re: (Score:2)
I get amazon prime video just because they include it with regular prime (which saved me much time, when things go wrong; and they do, on amazon, enough).
found a channel called 'great courses'. its a paid add-on, less than $10/mo, but needed something a little less dumbing-down to pass the hours away.
one that has been great: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Tim... [amazon.com]
here's another really good one on quantum mech: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum... [amazon.com]
while its not college level, exactly, its getting me much more modern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elementary, my dear data + Ship in a bottle.
The Inner Light
The Measure of a Man
Fantastic examples of great trek.
Every TV series has crap episodes. Only some have gems, too. For every 'City on the Edge of Forever' you will have a few 'Spock's Brain' episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree. I didn't mean to say my list was the only "gems". And I admit... Q was a guilty pleasure...
Re: (Score:2)
70 Y/O Boomer here.
Cord Cutter.
Happy Cord Cutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful not to interrupt his bigotry with basic facts. He needs to believe all boomers are the same.
Haven't had cable in years, neither has my "boomer" older sister, and neither does not 88 year old mom. The problem here is ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
60 Y/O Boomer here.
Cut the cord circa 1990 when the internet started to take off.
Jus sayin...
But, no. Stop upsetting the boomer vs millennial stereotypes. /s
Re: (Score:2)
That's 30 million/month less revenue to maintain the satillights.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a boomer. Haven't watched cable tv for at least 8 years since I retired. Actually a decade.
I would pay $40 for cable back when. Today, I might pay $50. I won't pay $260.
So now i watch a lot of cool Youtube stuff, write programs, watch a little netflix and prime.
That's about it.