Table of Contents
Scope and Themes
-
- What you need to know
- Definition
- Data sources
- Consumer survey data
- Advertising creative
- U.S. Consumer Household Panel Direct Mail Methodology
- Data collection methodology
- Geographic specifications
- Estimated mail volume methodology
- Abbreviations and terms
- Abbreviations
- Terms
Executive Summary
-
- Subscriptions down, but little indication of cord cutting due to alternative content options
- High consumer penetration, with cost leading choices
- Strong drivers for growth in the industry include increase in TV viewership
- Consumers indicate low intent to cancel service altogether
- Leading companies promote digital video recorder (DVR) technology among other advances
- Competitive Context
- Consumers indicate advanced features as “nice to have,” but few indicate willingness to switch providers for them
Insights and Opportunities
-
- Interactive viewing technology
- Getting it all on-demand
Inspire Insights
-
- Trend: Make It Mine
- Trend: Guiding Choice
Market Size and Forecast
-
- Key points
- Projected 2011 revenue gains smallest in half-decade
- Sales and forecast of pay TV providers
-
- Figure 1: U.S. revenues of pay TV providers, at current prices, 2006-16
- Figure 2: U.S. revenues of pay TV providers, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2006-16
- Fan chart forecast
-
- Figure 3: Fan chart forecast of U.S. revenues of pay TV providers, at current prices, 2006-16
Market Drivers
-
- Key points
- TV viewership on the rise
- Continued unemployment strains consumer spending
-
- Figure 4: U.S. unemployment, January 2007-July 2011
- Multigeneration households on the rise
- Decreasing housing starts
-
- Figure 5: New home starts, January 2010–August 2011
Competitive Context
-
- Content options beyond TV proliferate, but consumers still tuning in
-
- Figure 6: Pay TV subscription status, by ownership of alternative content delivery, July 2011
- Internet video
- Network sites
- Aggregator sites
- Internet TV
Segment Performance
-
- Overview
- Revenue growth slowed by subscriber losses
- Pay TV provider revenue and subscribers, by segment
-
- Figure 7: U.S. revenues of pay TV providers, segmented by type, 2009-11
- Figure 8: U.S. pay TV subscribers, segmented by type, 2009-11
- Figure 9: U.S. video revenues of pay TV providers, by segment, 2006-16
- Cable—struggles to maintain dominance
-
- Figure 10: U.S. video revenues of cable TV providers, at current prices, 2006-16
- Satellite—makes gains, but thunder stolen by telco
-
- Figure 11: U.S. satellite TV revenue, at current prices, 2006-16
- Telcos—Projected growth stabilizing
-
- Figure 12: U.S. revenues of telco (fiber optic) pay TV providers, at current prices, 2006-16
Leading Companies
-
- Key points
- No change in share among pay TV leaders
-
- Figure 13: VIDEO-RELATED REVENUES OF PUBLICLY OWNED PAY TV PROVIDERS, 2010-11
- Cable subscriber losses drive industry decline
-
- Figure 14: SUBSCRIBER COUNTS OF PUBLICLY OWNED PAY TV PROVIDERS, 2010-11
- Telcos favored by highest income earners
-
- Figure 15: Pay television service provider by household income, July 2011
- Cable providers
- Comcast (Xfinity)
- Time Warner
- Cablevision (Optimum)
- Charter Communications
- Satellite providers
-
- Figure 16: Satellite provider, by household income, July 2010-March 2011
- DirectTV
- Dish Network
- Telco providers
- Verizon (FiOS)
- AT&T (U-verse)
- Leading companies by urban area
-
- Figure 17: Pay television service provider by urban area, July 2011
- Subscribers feel strongly about satellites
-
- Figure 18: Positive vs. negative brand perceptions, July 2011 (Part 1)
-
- Figure 19: Positive vs. negative brand perceptions, July 2011 (Part 2)
Innovations and Innovators
-
- New technologies needed to differentiate and grow revenue
- Expanding viewing opportunities
- Exclusive content and original programming
- Working with online content and enhancing connectivity
- The human aspect of technology
Marketing Strategies
-
- Overview of the brand landscape
- Cable—promotes bundles and cost savings
- Brand analysis: Comcast (Xfinity)
-
- Figure 20: Brand analysis of Comcast (Xfinity), 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 21: Comcast (Xfinity) online ad, June 2011
- Figure 22: Comcast (Xfinity) Xfinity can campaign, October 2011
-
- Figure 23: Xfinity4College Facebook page, October 2011
- TV presence
-
- Figure 24: Comcast (Xfinity), television ad, 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 25: Comcast (Xfinity) email ad, August 2011
- Brand analysis: Time Warner Cable
-
- Figure 26: Brand analysis of Time Warner Cable, 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 27: Time Warner Cable online ad, July 2011
- TV presence
-
- Figure 28: Time Warner Cable, television ad, 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 29: Time Warner Cable email ad, January 2011
- Brand analysis: Charter Communications
-
- Figure 30: Brand analysis of Charter Communications, 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 31: Charter online ad, August 2011
- TV presence
-
- Figure 32: Charter Communications, television ad, 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 33: Charter email ad, September 2011
- Brand analysis: Cox Communications
-
- Figure 34: Brand analysis of Cox Communications, 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 35: Cox Communications online ad, February 2011
- TV presence
-
- Figure 36: Cox Communications, television ad, 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 37: Cox Communications email ad, May 2011
- Satellites—push low cost, DirecTV highlights offerings
- Brand analysis: DirecTV
-
- Figure 38: Brand analysis of DirecTV, 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 39: DirecTV online ad, May 2011
- TV presence
-
- Figure 40: DirecTV, television ad, 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 41: DirecTV email ad, May 2011
- Brand analysis: Dish Network
-
- Figure 42: Brand analysis of Dish Network, 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 43: Dish Network online ad, August 2011
- TV presence
-
- Figure 44: Dish Network, television ad, 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 45: Dish Network email ad, July 2011
- Telcos—push bundles, advanced offerings
- Brand analysis: Verizon (FiOS)
-
- Figure 46: Brand analysis of Verizon (FiOS), 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 47: Verizon (FiOS) online ad, July 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 49: Verizon (FiOS) email ad, April 2011
- Brand analysis: AT&T (U-verse)
-
- Figure 50: Brand analysis of AT&T (U-verse), 2011
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 51: AT&T (U-verse) online ad, May 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 53: AT&T (U-verse) email ad, April 2011
Subscription Status
-
- Key points
- Penetration marching forward
-
- Figure 54: Subscription to pay TV service, trended, May 2005–March 2011
-
- Figure 55: Pay TV subscription status, by household income, July 2011
- Reasons for not subscribing
-
- Figure 56: Reasons for not subscribing to pay TV, July 2011
Attitudes Toward Pay TV
-
- Key points
- Promotions are strong means of attracting subscribers
-
- Figure 57: Attitudes toward pay TV subscription prices by household income, July 2011
- Cost sways, high-income pays
-
- Figure 58: Attitudes toward pay TV subscription prices by household income, July 2011
Beyond Basic: PPV, VOD, DVR, and Premium Content
-
- Key points
- No content is too much content
- Whenever we want it: The rise of VOD and DVR
-
- Figure 59: Access to VOD, trended, July 2010-March 2011
-
- Figure 60: DVR penetration, trended, May 2005-March 2011
- Figure 61: Access to PPV, trended, May 2005-March 2011
- HBO: odd man out
-
- Figure 62: Premium channel subscription, trended, May 2005–March 2011
- Premium, VOD, PPV, DVR: Pocketbook affairs
-
- Figure 63: Premium channel subscription, July 2010-March 2011
- Figure 64: VOD subscription, July 2010-March 2011
-
- Figure 65: DVR penetration, by household income, July 2010-March 2011
- Age patterns suggest kids factor into DVRs
-
- Figure 66: DVR penetration, by age, July 2010-March 2011
- Cable gains against TiVO in DVR subs
-
- Figure 67: DVR provider, trended, May 2005-March 2011
Attitudes Toward Advanced Features
-
- Key points
- It’d be nice, but…
-
- Figure 68: Level of interest in various pay TV services and likelihood of changing providers to get them, July 2011
- Higher income earners could go for more
-
- Figure 69: Which pay TV services do subscribers want? by household income, July 2011
-
- Figure 70: Interest in multiroom DVR functions, by household income, July 2011
- 44 and under interested, flexible
-
- Figure 71: Which pay TV services do subscribers want? by age, July 2011
- Figure 72: Interest in multiroom DVR functions, by age, July 2011
-
- Figure 73: Attitudes toward video on demand offerings by age, July 2011
Plans to Change Service
-
- Key points
- One in four subs possibly up for grabs
-
- Figure 74: Intent to cancel or change pay TV service, by age, July 2011
- Price drives interest in switching
-
- Figure 75: Reasons for changing service by age, July 2011
- Satellites have strong pull
-
- Figure 76: Brands under consideration for service among those changing providers by gender, July 2011
Attitudes Toward Bundled Services
-
- Key points
- Older consumers prefer convenience, while younger ones prefer to shop around
-
- Figure 77: Attitudes toward bundled services by age, July 2011
- Higher income consumers open to more, OK having others do it for them
-
- Figure 78: Attitudes toward bundled services, by household income, July 2011
- Access is an issue for rural consumers
-
- Figure 79: Attitudes toward bundled services by urban status, July 2011
Impact of Race and Hispanic Origin
-
- Key points
- Asians and Hispanics exhibit greatest interest in pay TV advances
-
- Figure 80: Level of interest in various pay TV services and likelihood of changing providers to get them, by race and Hispanic origin, July 2011
- …while whites are more inclined to take the easy route
-
- Figure 81: Attitudes toward bundled services by race and Hispanic origin, July 2011
Custom Consumer Groups
-
- Key points
- Empowering singles to take charge
-
- Figure 82: Length of time without subscription by marital/relationship status, July 2011
- Keeping costs in check for households with kids
-
- Figure 83: Length of time without subscription, by presence of children in household, July 2011
- When your schedule is not your own
-
- Figure 84: DVR penetration, by presence of children, May 2005-March 2011
-
- Figure 85: Interest in multiroom DVR functions, by presence of children, July 2011
- Simplify my life, please
-
- Figure 86: Pay TV services currently used, by household size, July 2011
-
- Figure 87: Pay TV services would like to have, by household size, July 2011
- VOD important with KIDS
-
- Figure 88: Attitudes toward video on demand offerings, by presence of children in household, July 2011
Cluster Analysis
-
- Apathetic Savvy Shoppers
- Demographics
- Characteristics
- Opportunity
- Disengaged Older Adults
- Demographics
- Characteristics
- Opportunity
- Amicable High Rollers
- Demographics
- Characteristics
- Opportunity
- Cluster characteristic tables
-
- Figure 89: Pay TV clusters, July 2011
- Figure 90: Intent to cancel or change pay TV service, by pay TV clusters, July 2011
- Figure 91: Attitudes toward bundled services by pay TV clusters, July 2011
-
- Figure 92: Attitudes toward pay TV subscription prices, by pay TV clusters, July 2011
- Figure 93: Interest in pay TV services, by pay TV clusters, July 2011 (Part 1)
-
- Figure 94: Interest in pay TV services, by pay TV clusters, July 2011 (Part 2)
- Figure 95: Attitudes toward video on demand offerings, by pay TV clusters, July 2011
-
- Figure 96: Pay television service provider, by pay TV clusters, July 2011
- Figure 97: Positive vs. negative brand perceptions, by pay TV clusters, July 2011 (Part 1)
-
- Figure 98: Positive vs. negative brand perceptions, by pay TV clusters, July 2011 (Part 2)
- Cluster demographic tables
-
- Figure 99: Pay TV clusters, by gender, July 2011
- Figure 100: Pay TV clusters, by age, July 2011
- Figure 101: Pay TV clusters, by household income, July 2011
- Figure 102: Pay TV clusters, by race, July 2011
- Figure 103: Pay TV clusters, by Hispanic origin, July 2011
-
- Figure 104: Pay TV clusters, by education, July 2011
- Figure 105: Pay TV clusters, by employment, July 2011
- Figure 106: Pay TV clusters, by presence of children in household, July 2011
- Cluster methodology
Appendix: Other Useful Consumer Tables
-
-
- Figure 107: Use of pay television service provider by region, July 2011
-
- Figure 108: Brands under consideration for service among those changing providers by urban status, July 2011
-
- Figure 109: Frequency of PPV usage, by age, July 2010-March 2011
-
- Figure 110: Frequency of PPV usage in past year, by household income, July 2010-March 2011
-
Appendix: Trade Associations
Back to top