No, it says there are 116.4m TV households (that includes people without subscription TV).

Pay TV subscribers are about 84% of the above (97.7m). The article referenced says ESPN is at 78% coverage (that is based on the 116.4m TV households).

The 84% penetration of pay TV has been relatively flat since hitting this peak number a few years ago.

This article is from 2014, but gives more detail...

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/us-pay-...2014-09-02

(02-03-2016 10:23 PM)Topkat Wrote:  No, it says there are 116.4m TV households (that includes people without subscription TV).

116.4 million includes homes with TV, whether or not they have a cable/satellite subscription. But it doesn't include households that have no TV.

(02-04-2016 12:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 10:23 PM)Topkat Wrote:  No, it says there are 116.4m TV households (that includes people without subscription TV).

116.4 million includes homes with TV, whether or not they have a cable/satellite subscription. But it doesn't include households that have no TV.

That is why they are called "TV households" (and 84% of them have pay-tv of some kind).

Quote:Who are the hundred thousand saps that pay to have ESPN but not ESPN 2??

It's more like, what's the crazy small town cable companies that offer ESPN but not ESPN2 along with it in their "package"?

I think it's people who don't watch ESPN who are part of a small amount of packages that separate ESPN/ESPN2.

According to the US Census, there are only 115M households ... unless I'm not understanding this correctly: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

So how can there be 116M TV households, when not every household even has a TV?


(note: I'm assuming "Housing units" refers to the total supply, regardless of occupation status)

corbett (#17),

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it.

(02-04-2016 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  According to the US Census, there are only 115M households ... unless I'm not understanding this correctly: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

So how can there be 116M TV households, when not every household even has a TV?


(note: I'm assuming "Housing units" refers to the total supply, regardless of occupation status)

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/2015-2016-dma-ranks.pdf

Actually, there is a decrease in TV household. New number in link show the TV household is now at 113.3 million. A decrease from the prior year and year before.

last year was 113.8 million. http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_20..._Ranks.pdf

2013-2014: 115.8 million
2012-2013: 114.1 million http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corpo...-Ranks.pdf

Not sure how the decrease came about because they would include those who watch OTA only. Perhaps a couple million just gave up the TV totally?

Well, the whole thing is built on a house of cards, in my opinion. I mean, ratings. How they're derived, what they actually mean and why anyone should care.

Yet they're the basis of everything in pay TV, determining advertising and carriage fees.


There should be a better way.

(02-04-2016 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  According to the US Census, there are only 115M households ... unless I'm not understanding this correctly: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

So how can there be 116M TV households, when not every household even has a TV?


(note: I'm assuming "Housing units" refers to the total supply, regardless of occupation status)

They are both estimates, using their own numbers, and might even be estimates from different time periods. A variance of less than 1% is not uncommon for such a large number. Also, nielsen may include businesses in the TV households number (not sure on that).

(02-04-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the whole thing is built on a house of cards, in my opinion. I mean, ratings. How they're derived, what they actually mean and why anyone should care.

Yet they're the basis of everything in pay TV, determining advertising and carriage fees.


There should be a better way.

There are a LOT of people in the TV industry who feel that way. But until a better solution is offered, nothing will change.

Nielsen removed broadband only homes from pay tv estimate without adjusting for past periods when broadband homes were counted. Thus the dramatic drop.
http://nypost.com/2016/01/30/nielsen-rev...help-espn/

(02-04-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the whole thing is built on a house of cards, in my opinion. I mean, ratings. How they're derived, what they actually mean and why anyone should care.

Yet they're the basis of everything in pay TV, determining advertising and carriage fees.


There should be a better way.

Ratings mean diddly poo imo. It has only slightly more credibility to me than the Census Bureau, which misses lots of people not because it doesn't try.

Can i pay extra to have the big ten network removed. Its godawful. Turrible. Ive seen infomercials for walk in tubs that are more interesting.

corbett (#29),

No ... the census data is total households. Yes, obviously an estimate ... but a pretty good one. How many of those can possibly be considered "TV households"? What does that even mean?? A household that owns a TV? If it sits in a box in the garage, is that good enough? Should it be plugged in? Should it have an antenna connected? Should it have cable/sat? Etc.

Does Apple TV only, qualify as a TV household?


Regardless, I would think that TV households has to be some fraction of total households. Maybe 80-85%. So if the total number is 115M ... no way can the total TV households be 116M.

I believe all households are considered "tv households," whether they actually have TV's or not, for the purpose of the census: could be wrong though. But what I was saying was the difference between the numbers, is each estimates the number of households using different sources.

(02-04-2016 09:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  corbett (#29),

No ... the census data is total households. Yes, obviously an estimate ... but a pretty good one. How many of those can possibly be considered "TV households"? What does that even mean?? A household that owns a TV? If it sits in a box in the garage, is that good enough? Should it be plugged in? Should it have an antenna connected? Should it have cable/sat? Etc.

Does Apple TV only, qualify as a TV household?


Regardless, I would think that TV households has to be some fraction of total households. Maybe 80-85%. So if the total number is 115M ... no way can the total TV households be 116M.

Apple TV only is a TV household but even if you pay for every available service it is no longer a "pay TV household"

(02-04-2016 09:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I believe all households are considered "tv households," whether they actually have tvs or not for the ourpose of the census: could be wrong thought. But what I was again 'twas he difference between the numbers is each estimates the number of households using different sources.

There are about 1.25 million to 2 million households with no television, presumably some have a computer, tablet, or phone for viewing video but not a television set, though before streaming became truly viable there were roughly that many homes with no TV so that may be a pretty legit number.

Ok, so from 115M total, 113M TV households would make sense. I saw 113M in a post. But originally I thought Wedge's OP was 116M TV households.

And to ArkSt's point, I have AppleTV, which I use to view the ESPN (WatchESPN) app for ESPN3 content.

So, that should count as a TV Household that has ESPN. But I bet my household is excluded, with regard to the article in the OP.

You could say "but you don't subscribe to ESPN via cable/sat", which is true, but my ISP pays a fee to ESPN in order for me to access ESPN3 content at no additional cost out of my pocket. So I vote that counts.

Watching Bob Iger (Disney CEO) on CNBC. Text crawl will announce an uptick in ESPN subscribers.


Not sure how many will be announced but I think this will be just a temporary uptick just to stop the slide of the stock which is now at $90. Missed the discussion of Iger commenting on Netflix.