The cord cutting pushback has begun. Wired, The LA Times and even my own colleagues have all argued that cutting the cord is starting to lose its luster, and that as more companies break off into their own streaming services (instead of putting their content up on Netflix), cord cutting will soon be just as expensive as cable.
These articles are technically correct. But they also miss the point a bit: paying for all those services isn’t the only way to cut the cord.
Yes, it’s true that subscribing to Netflix, Hulu, Sling TV, Amazon Prime, and HBO Go will add up to roughly as much as a cable bundle. It’s also true that companies keep creating new streaming services like CBS All Access and Disney’s upcoming venture, all in the hopes of extracting even more money from those without cable.
But paying for all of those services isn’t cord cutting: it’s just cable by another name. Cord cutting was never going to fit everyone, and if you’re the sort of person who wants access to every show as soon as it airs, the cable bundle probably serves you well. The same goes for sports fans. Enjoy your bundle.
But if you’re not that sort of person, cord cutting lets you decide what entertainment is and isn’t worth paying for in a way no cable company offers. Satisfied with watching whatever is on Netflix? $10 a month and you’re done. Want more? Throw in Hulu or Amazon Prime, and you still have a ton of content for a fraction of what cable costs.
You have control now, in a way that wasn’t true five years ago. That control is prompting hundreds of thousands to drop cable, and it’s not going to stop. Choice is attractive.
You Don’t Need Everything
The problem with most anti-cord-cutting polemics is they assume every customer wants everything they had with cable, just online and with a cheaper price tag. That’s simply not the case.
If you’re the sort of customer who wants to watch Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and Rick and Morty as soon as new episodes air, cord cutting might not be for you. Sure, you might be able to put together an Internet-only way to watch all of these things right away, and it might work out to be cheaper than a conventional cable package. If so, lucky you.
But cord cutting’s main appeal isn’t for people who absolutely need to watch the latest thing right away. The big appeal is for people who occasionally want something to watch, and are tired of paying $100 a month to do that. Those are the people cutting cable quickly, and that trend isn’t going to stop.
You Can Rotate Services In And Out
It really sucks that CBS is locking Star Trek Discovery away in a service with absolutely nothing else I’m interested in watching. I caught the premiere on CBS and am cautiously optimistic, but I’m not going to pay $10 a month in perpetuity to watch this one show once a week.
What I might do, assuming the reviews are good, is wait until the first season is available, pay $10 for a month’s service, and binge watch the season before that month expires. Then I’ll end my subscription.
That’s the kind of flexibility you have in the cord cutting marketplace. It’s also the kind of flexibility that was impossible before it.
Sure, I have to actively keep track of which services offer which shows, which isn’t exactly fun, but the point is to only spend money on things I actually want. Traditional cable bundles didn’t give me that. The current system still doesn’t, but it’s a…
The post Cord Cutting Only Sucks If You’re Trying to Replicate Cable appeared first on FeedBox.