Jump to content

Netflix Has Almost 4x as Many Streaming Subscribers as Comcast has Cable Subscribers


Jesse
 Share

Recommended Posts

Traditional Cable providers better get with the times and stop gouging customers.

Netflix Has Almost 4x as Many Streaming Subscribers as Comcast has Cable Subscribers

Netflix has been growing at a rapid pace over the past few years, with international expansion, a focused strategy on original content that gets people talking, and an affordable price point that appeals to younger subscribers. Because of this, Netflix has surpassed 100 million subscribers this year, their CEO Reed Hastings casually celebrating with a steak dinner at Denny’s last week.

18034143_10154906771259584_2492281797593

We wanted to compare this growth to the total number of cable television subscribers Comcast currently has, so we browsed through Comcast’s Q1 2017 financial reporting. As you can see in the report, Comcast currently has 28.9 million subscribers, adding 279,000 over the last three months.

So how do the two companies compare side-by-side when it comes to adding new subscribers? Pulling data from each company’s financial reporting, we found that Netflix has 4x the total number of subscribers as Comcast, and has been growing at a much faster pace, especially over the past few years. See the approximate annual subscriber count of each service below (in millions):

Netflix-vs-Comcast-subscriber-count.png

It’s of course important to point out that naturally we’d expect a service with massive popularity that only costs 1/5th of its cable counterparts to have more subscribers. But the interesting thing is of course how much faster Netflix is growing their subscriber numbers compared to traditional cable.

This can probably be largely attributed to international expansion, territory that Comcast hasn’t touched. But there still seems to be a trend in the younger audiences to avoid signing up for cable altogether, instead opting for streaming services. Very few people in the younger age brackets are rushing to sign up for their own cable subscriptions, while Netflix, at its price and with a content library to match, has much more appeal.

Netflix has also been hitting its stride in international markets, bringing a higher quality library with targeted content that is supposed to appeal in these markets. Last year, we reported that there was very little consistency in each country and the number of titles in each region were all over the map. Lately, we’ve noticed less complaints in international markets, and these growing subscriber numbers abroad seem to signal that Netflix is figuring it out.

How about you? Do you subscribe to Netflix, Comcast or both? Let us know in the comments!

http://exstreamist.com/netflix-has-almost-4x-as-many-streaming-subscribers-as-comcast-has-cable-subscribers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I love seeing the cable companies flounder, and like that Netflix can now throw some weight around to get content and make their own, one thing to keep in mind is that the coverage area of Netflix is available to everyone with internet in pretty much every country except China, Crimea, North Korea, Syria.

Compare that with the map of people who can get Comcast.....

7MvMkXU.png

The cable market is nicely divided up so each company gets their own little monopoly in their respective markets. Also notice in the original post that Comcast's line is also going up, just not as fast, due to already being pretty saturated.

 

That all being said, these cable companies are idiots. They were so arrogant and intent on sticking to their classic business model that they just gave the future away to Netflix. They had the content deals and the means to get it to the customer (since they were also already suppling the internet)... and in Comcast's case, they even own NBC, so they own the content itself. And they failed to make an internet only option and now they're losing. Incompetence at it's finest. The content providers all own Hulu, but they managed to screw that up by trying to make it just bad enough that people wouldn't give up their cable TV subscription for it. It could have been great. Oh well. Netflix is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have directv $85 a month and netflix $15 a month. I would guess i watch 4 hours of netflix to 1 hour of directv. The netflix value is pretty incredible for the price. I am surprised they dont charge more. Directv is soon to be out the door at my house if they dont lower the price. I feel the value isn't worth more than $25 a month. I have hula as well and pay the extra for no commercials. Directv and cable companies alike can suck it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Lazylivin said:

I have directv $85 a month and netflix $15 a month. I would guess i watch 4 hours of netflix to 1 hour of directv. The netflix value is pretty incredible for the price. I am surprised they dont charge more. Directv is soon to be out the door at my house if they dont lower the price. I feel the value isn't worth more than $25 a month. I have hula as well and pay the extra for no commercials. Directv and cable companies alike can suck it.

So true we only use sling Netflix and Hulu.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tink a prime example of this issue and the future is ESPiN recently getting rid of 100's (Can't remember exact number) of their TV personalities. I think in the next five years sports go to pay-per-view as people slowing disappear from paying for 300 channels that they don't watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jesse said:

I tink a prime example of this issue and the future is ESPiN recently getting rid of 100's (Can't remember exact number) of their TV personalities. I think in the next five years sports go to pay-per-view as people slowing disappear from paying for 300 channels that they don't watch.

Well if ESPN and many other cable channels could stop mixing left wing political opinion in with sports and such  that may help too lol. Every one, no matter what side of the spectrum you are on politically, watches sports and things to provide a break from thinking about that crap. If I want politics I will go looking for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2017 at 11:47 AM, Muttley000 said:

Well if ESPN and many other cable channels could stop mixing left wing political opinion in with sports and such  that may help too lol. Every one, no matter what side of the spectrum you are on politically, watches sports and things to provide a break from thinking about that crap. If I want politics I will go looking for it

I can ignore the biases opinions as you get that everywhere. The problem is companies continuing to gouge the man, making billion dollar profits, and not lowering their pricing as technology becomes cheaper. Traditional Cable/Satellite companies will die in the future to make an extra dollar today. Next will be the same companies and ISP's over-charging for Internet Service.

Where is @wastern on this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jesse said:

I can ignore the biases opinions as you get that everywhere. The problem is companies continuing to gouge the man, making billion dollar profits, and not lowering their pricing as technology becomes cheaper. Traditional Cable/Satellite companies will die in the future to make an extra dollar today. Next will be the same companies and ISP's over-charging for Internet Service.

Where is @wastern on this subject?

 

The cable market is an oligopoly. There are a few companies, and they agree to have each server their own little areas, which means limited consumer choice and a lack of competition. This allows them to keep prices high, because there is no competitors driving prices down. Decreasing tech prices just means an increased profit margin, which is great for business. They really have no reason to drop their prices, as they aren't losing business over it. No one is going to stop using the internet, so they have everyone over a barrel.

I've read some people in the past saying that going to 100% internet based, or on-demand programming won't work, because there just isn't enough bandwidth. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but if so, that may be a reason the cable companies continue to push traditional TV vs switching to a Netflix-like model and crushing them. There is also the issue of the contacts not allowing them to do certain things. 

Also, if there are a few smaller channels you like, they may disappear in an all streaming model. The big stations, ESPN, NBC, FX, etc are like anchor stores in a strip mall. They bundle other things with them because the others couldn't survive on their own. Those smaller stations may not drive enough traffic on their own, but they can provide value to some and can exist as long as that anchor station gets people turning on the TV. People will sign up for a single station like HBO, but very few will sign up ad-hoc for some of these smaller stations that are a little more niche, but still provide value to those in the niche. I think that's one reason Netflix doesn't really look at ratings when they evaluate renewing shows, or they set the bar pretty low. They understand that it isn't just about the blockbuster shows like House of Cards, but also about fleshing out the offerings with stuff maybe only a small percentage of the user base enjoys, but they enjoy it a lot.

We can say it would be nice to just pick the 10 channels I actually watch, but at some point the accountants are going to show up and axe anything that doesn't meet a certain threshold in terms of subscribers. That also kills discovery and channel flipping; stations would only get new subscribers based on word of mouth or advertising/social media. I'll scan through 300 channels and say "nothing is on", imagine how fast that would happen with only 10 stations in a broadcast model.

I agree that the cable companies are shooting themselves in the foot by not adapting fast enough to the changing world, but there are a lot of factors at play, and contracts to adhere to. Not to mention, I'm sure they still have a large number of TV subscribers without internet who can't or won't learn a new way, can't afford more services on a fixed income, and will be costly to switch over.. this is the 65+ crowd. Granted, by dad is about in this age range and has multiple computers, streaming devices, and all kinds of stuff... but at this age it is hit and miss, and as you go older it is less and less likely they will have or want internet... outside of maybe an iPad to FaceTime the grandkids or something, but LTE is a better option there.

I think Netflix is providing a rich enough offering, that most people can dumb cable TV if they want to. The real issues are sports and news. If those two issues can be solved in a Netflix-like model, they cable companies won't have a leg to stand on... but they still provide the internet, which gives them a lot of leverage as they can make internet cheaper for those who have cable. They're already doing this on occasion. I've had my internet only bill lowered by $1 by picking up 200 channels, a DVR and HBO... I got all that for -$1 per month. But then of course, 5G wireless internet is around the corner, which seems like it might make the idea of home internet service from the cables companies redundant. At that point, 5G + Netflix might mean the ability to get fully off of Comcast, or whoever is the local hated cable company. The big wildcard are data caps on 5G... will they exist? I used 250GB from Comcast last month, they start charging extra if you go over 1024GB. That threshold for LTE is much lower, so streaming Netflix all day, especially if you are going to end up doing it in 4K, is going to get very expensive, very quickly.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...