Americans Get Hundreds Of TV Channels, Can Still Only Handle 17

Wall Street Journal ^ | 05/07/2014 | Steven Perlberg

[SeekAndFind]

It seems every year Americans have more TV channel options than the year prior, but one number has remained consistent — 17.

That’s the average number of channels viewers actually tune in to.

In 2013, the average TV home received 189 channels, up from 129 in 2008, according to a new report from Nielsen. Back in 2008 Americans tuned in to an average of 17.3 channels, as opposed to this year’s 17.5 figure.

Maybe that’s all we channel-surfers can handle.

“This data is significant in that it substantiates the notion that more content does not necessarily equate to more channel consumption,” writes Nielsen. “And that means quality is imperative—for both content creators and advertisers. So the best way to reach consumers in a world with myriad options is to be the best option.”

[Rio]

I’ve been happily stuck at zero channels for the past seven years.

[Da Coyote]

I would love the option to choose to pay for only the few channels I want. I’m really tired of 25 Spanish stations, 136 sports stations, a History channel that seems locked on Ancient Aliens (with the world’s scariest hairdo’d idiot pretending he knows what he is talking about)....etc.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Guess I am old enough to remember the days when we only had 4 channels, but were lucky to live high enough on a hill to get a couple more from Ohio.

Than that 5th. channel signed-on using something called “UHF” and it was da bomb.

[Blood of Tyrants]

when you have 15 channels of QVC type channels, 15 sports channels, and a dozen left-wing news channels, it only makes it harder to find something worth watching.

[Fresh Wind]

It’s not a matter of not being able to handle more channels, it’s a matter of very few channels are actually worth watching.

[PubliusMM]

“Americans Get Hundreds Of TV Channels, Can Still Only Handle 17”

Why over think it? It’s most likely that, out of all those channels, the average viewer only finds 17 or so that are of interest. Likely has nothing to do with being overwhelmed with channels. The variety leads to the number, IMO.

[Blood of Tyrants]

That would be great. I wonder how one would set up a satellite company that allows the people to subscribe only to the channels they want to watch.

[null and void]

[caver]

I remember those days too, in black & white.

[VanDeKoik]

What’s a TV channel?

[oh8eleven]

I would love the option to choose to pay for only the few channels I want.
Ala carte programming will NEVER happen ... and why? "Viewership inequality," i.e., same as socialism.
Without all of us carrying the load, the lesser watched channels like Spanish language, religious, BET, Fear, etc., would disappear.
Can't have that!

[DonkeyBonker]

All them and I still end up watching reruns of I Love Lucy. </sarc>

[DownInFlames]

Mine is Netflix.

[Buckeye McFrog]

We were the last house on the block to get color.
Just before Christmas 1975.

My dad had eight or nine black-and-white TV sets in the basement that people had given him. With that supply of spare parts and his military electronics training, he thought he’d never have to by another TV in his lifetime.

My mom forced him to buy a color set when us kids kept pestering her parents to come to their house to watch cartoons, the Thanksgiving Day parades, etc. in color.

Did not get cable until 1983 due to arcane political battles over who would get the franchise.

[ponygirl]

I cut my cable when my bill went over $80. Basic was around $55 and then you had to add another tier to get Fox and ESPN. I have since heard that they have put ESPN on a different tier, so now you have to add another. Then they load taxes onto that. For every tier you add, you get one channel you want and 30 you'll never look at. So I said buh-bye. I watch local and if I want more than that, I go to Netflix, Hulu and Apple TV. Or I just turn it off! The cable companies have ruined their own industry. I don't miss them at all.

They are now doing the same thing to the internet, as my bill, which started out 6 years ago around $45, has now passed $60. So if they keep raising it, eventually I'll dump that as well. I don't think they realize how much business they are going to lose once people have to start paying thousands for "free" healthcare. Something has to give.

[usurper]

Without all of us carrying the load, the lesser watched channels like Spanish language, religious, BET, Fear, etc., would disappear. Can't have that!

I think you mean MSNBC and PBS.

[Ghost of SVR4]

I dropped my cable a few years back. The channels I liked we’re spread out across “packages”. I as tired of paying $100.00+ a month and I only wanted to watch 10-12 depending. Lots of channels stay afloat that are watched hardly at all because they reside in a “package”. Oprah’s network is a prime example of this. Switch to al a carte and watch how quickly her’s and many other worthless channels (or channels with no demand) die.

[VRWCmember]

We probably have over 500 channels (including about 200 HD duplicates of SD channels that we get), and there are probably about 25 to 30 channels that we watch with any regularity. It has nothing to do with how much we can handle and is instead a limitation of which channels have any programming that we are interested in watching.

Many times, especially during the lull where there are no good sport events active, we literally have 500+ channels and NOTHING worth watching available.

[oh8eleven]

I think you mean MSNBC and PBS.
Actually, I think both would survive ala carte programming - pMSNBC would just get more money from NBC and PBS would just get more from the gubmint.