Timmy C's latest chat

[Skywalker]

Q: Al of Milwaukee, WI - Tim, For many people in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, you are there source for local television news. Last week, you had a headline on your column that Time Warner is offering Hi-Def on TBS just in time for the playoffs. I know that TWC dwarfs Direct TV in total viewers in the Milwaukee area, but why haven't you even mentioned that Direct TV is now offering over 50 channels in HiDef and should have over 100 by the end of the year. Not even a mention from you!! C'mon, I think DTV has about 13% of the Milwaukee market according to the latest figures I saw.

A: Tim Cuprisin - Al, more than 60% of the southeast Wisconsin market has Time Warner cable. That makes what they do far bigger news than what satellite TV does. But I am thinking about a column in the not-too-distant future about the HD offerings of satellite vs. cable.


We don't want you to over extend yourself, Cuprisin.

[Tom Snyder]

C'mon now... be nice.

Tim and I had this same conversation (without the wisecrack) last week.  

As of the last research he's seen, combined satellite has a total market share of under 10% in Milwaukee.  

Even if D* and E* split that share equally, that means 5% have D*. With only a third of D* subscribers having "advanced" equipment (DVRS and HD), that means that, if my math is correct, D* HD is only available to... get ready for a shock:

1.5% of the market (Approximately 14,500 of the 880,000 households).

When the time has been right, Tim has done articles on HD (and mentioned us). I suspect that he will do another one soon.  But we HD people are still a minuscule portion of the viewing public... and those of us who are D* guys are even smaller still.  

Will more HD on D* increase that market share? Probably. Will the Journal Sentinel mentioning the amount of HD help? Sure... But the numbers would have to double every year for the next five years for D* HD subscribers to even make up 25% of the market.

Let's continue to be vocal proponents for more HD, but let's keep things in perspective.

[vegasvic]

I had a similar conversation with Bob Wolfely a few weeks ago when he did an article on the Big Ten Network/TWC.  There was no mention that it's available on DTV (in HD no less).  He gave me the same spiel, "Most people have TWC, blah blah blah".

I told him that as a SPORTS columnist maybe he would do local SPORTS fan a service by talking about the difference between cable and satellite SPORTS offerings.

[jkane]

Where do those numbers come from?  Does TWC count anyone who gets a bill from them?  I wonder because most people I know get their TV from DBS, and their internet from TWC.  When I see low DBS numbers and high cable numbers, I am curious if they are fake numbers based on billing by a company, and not actual cable watchers!

Bottom line is, my personal anecdotal evidence, is more people watch DBS than Cable!  This group also includes 3 families who refuse to have either in their homes.  :huh?:

[AndrewP]

Where do those numbers come from?  Does TWC count anyone who gets a bill from them?  I wonder because most people I know get their TV from DBS, and their internet from TWC.  When I see low DBS numbers and high cable numbers, I am curious if they are fake numbers based on billing by a company, and not actual cable watchers!

Bottom line is, my personal anecdotal evidence, is more people watch DBS than Cable!  This group also includes 3 families who refuse to have either in their homes.  :huh?:

I also have RR, but not TV service from TWC.

[brewguru]

I am the person who posted that question to Tim. I think it's a disservice to viewers in Milwaukee to not even mention Direct TV. If you just read Cuspirin's columns, one wouldn't even know there's an option to TWC in the Milwaukee area.

I thought I saw a report about a month ago that said 13% of Milwaukeans have satellite.

Finally, it's nice that Cuspirin didn't even really answer my question. He has a headline saying how TWC added 1 channel, but not even a mention that D* added 50 channels.

It's almost like he gets paid from TWC.

[vegasvic]

And today he talks about the new Fox Business Channel and gives the channel number on TWC. He mentions that it's also on DTV but gives no channel number and doesn't bother to mention that it's in HD on DTV.

I would think the addition of tons of new HD channels would at least be worth a mention in one of his columns.   Instead he just reprints whatever press releases show up in his email.

[Tom Snyder]

The other lost nuance is that Fox Business Channel is more than just an HD version of the SD channel...

Yes, the picture quality is absolutely stunning. The sets are all graphically brilliant and high-impact. The ticker graphics are super crisp.

But in HD, they show an "HD Wing" ... it's a right column of stock, business, and economic info on the HD channel only. They shift the 4:3 content that's shown full screen on the SD channel to the left and fill the rest of the 16:9 with the HD Wing.

They have a Dave Ramsey show, a pretty cool "Happy Hour" show that's shot in a upscale bar with lifestyle discussions... overall it looks poised to kick CNBC's butt like Fox News kicked CNN's.

And the HD gives them another advantage...

[borghe]

I would also be very interested in where these numbers come from, and who is providing them... Without a single point of exaggeration, I personally know 7 people in the past 6 months who have gone from cable to either satellite or u-verse. Heck, I can honestly say I know more people NOT on TWC than ON TWC. My cable dwelling friends can now be counted on one hand while my non-cable friends need over 3.

I think the TRUE reason Tim C. doesn't talk about DirecTV and satellite in general is because it goes against his stance that HDTV is essentially still a "beta" product. He still rarely comments on it, and when he does it is usually either quickly or as a slight. By acknowledging Dish's 40+ channels and DirecTV's now almost 50 national channels, and with the majority of ALL TVs for sale at the stores now HDTV, he really has no case anymore against HDTV not being ready for primetime. By mentioning only Time Warner and staying away from the major advances  by satellites and AT&T in recent years, he casn paint the picture as bleak still (which it is if you have cable).

Regardless, I would really love to see these 60% numbers and where they come from. I'm not naive.. I realize that most apartment complexes you go to all have cable lines run and strongly discourage dish usage, but even that I'm seeing change with more dishes being clamped to roofs and balconies. And that doesn't count the number of homes that have switched to AT&T, or just dropped cable altogether and switched to DVD or digital downloads (which are also growing continually).

If TWC really still has 60% of the market right here and today, then you can call me a monkey's uncle.

edit - in this press release from earthlink 6 years ago, they claim that Time Warner had 425,000 customers in Southeastern WI. Going by Tom's 880,000 households, that comes out to 48%, seven years ago no less. To hit Tim's 60% number they would need at least 528,000 subs in southeastern WI. Do we really believe that over the past 6 years, when cable as a whole and TWC especially has seen net losses year after year, that they've managed to net GAIN 100,000 customers? And if they haven't gained and in fact LOST subs like the rest of the cable industry, then that would put them at LESS than 48% of the market.

highly suspect indeed.

[brewguru]

I think it's true that Timmy C. prints whatever press release comes across his desk. I also think he gets TWC for free and is basically just another PR source for them.

The fact that he got the news out there that TWC was offering TBS in HiDef on the first day of the playoffs only confirms this theory.

I'm sure when the NFL network starts there NFL schedule later this year, he'll spin it so that the NFL is holding TWC hostage and not the other way around.

[techguy1975]

I would also be very interested in where these numbers come from, and who is providing them... Without a single point of exaggeration, I personally know 7 people in the past 6 months who have gone from cable to either satellite or u-verse. Heck, I can honestly say I know more people NOT on TWC than ON TWC. My cable dwelling friends can now be counted on one hand while my non-cable friends need over 3.

Its all a matter of prospective...  Almost everyone I know has cable, and not Satellite.  Weather it is 48% or 60%, the point is that TWC still has a very large market share.  Also, that number could count residential and businesses.  Almost every bar I've seen had TWC (and usually satellite as well).  

I agree that the 60% number seems a bit over inflated, but, the simple fact of the matter is that no matter how you slice it, it still is a large number, and while it is growing every day, the HDTV crowd is still small.