This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why Advertising Revenue At CNBC Parent Comcast Declined By 5%
Curious why Q3 revenue at the NBCUniversal segment of which CNBC is part of at Comcast remained unchanged at $2.255 billion compared to ($2.239 billion in Q3 2013), and why advertising revenue actually dropped by a lofty 4.6% in the quarter compared to a year ago?
Let's find out from the source, shall we. Here is the explanation from the company's earnings release:
For the third quarter of 2014, revenue from the Cable Networks segment increased 0.7% to $2.3 billion compared to $2.2 billion in the third quarter of 2013, reflecting a 5.1% increase in distribution revenue, partially offset by a 4.6% decline in advertising revenue, primarily due to a decline in ratings.
You mean... this?
»
- 6224 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
<-----soros dies 1st
<-----cnbc dies 1st
I can only choose one? That's a quandary there.
Soros plane gets hit by a snow plow in Davos.
Soros gets charged with collusion and loses his fortune through reparations of stolen wealth through the nazi regime.
hmmmmm...revenue down...why? let's see...
Is it because they suck shit 24/7, 365, for the last 20 years, maybe???
CNBC recently took away the ticker bar at the top of the screen and replaced it with an useless quotelist at the down right corner.
The ticker bar was the only item I was watching...
<-----Die at the same time and soon
CNBC.. MSNBC
…superfluous information channels
Vampires never die.
New York Times begs to differ:
Comcast, the cable and entertainment conglomerate, reported a 12 percent increase in earnings in the third quarter, propelled by growth in the company’s high-speed Internet business and NBC broadcast television network.
Total revenue increased 4 percent, to $16.8 billion, compared to the same period last year, the company reported Thursday.
Net income for the quarter was $2.6 billion, up 49.7 percent from the same period last year because of the one-time addition of income tax adjustments and other items. Excluding those additions, earnings per share increased 12.3 percent to 73 cents.
Cause they suck?
Yes. I think that people, over time, start to get a sense of what's happening. I felt a long time ago I was wasting my time watching this propaganda. After all, it's NOT reflecting what you are really seeing out in the real world, and it simply becomes uninteresting and tiring to be lied to day after day. Without real, truthful, and timely information which would actually be useful in a person's daily life, WTF could possibly be a reason to STAY TUNED? Yes, they suck.
That and more and more people are watching television on the internet. Including football.
Internet ad revenue has NOTHING on TV revenue. Especially when it comes to sport: thats why these leagues make all this money. It ain't butts in the seats. Plus, you can diversify ads more easily on television; when you watch closed streams, its usually the same 3-4 ads on a loop.
Also, the strapped American consumer has been paying for high speed internet to watch tv (avg 54.99/mth), and ditching the cable packages (avg 105.99/mth). Channel surfing is the only reason to get a cable package. Anyone with simple computer knowledge can easily find and watch the niche shows/sports they want on the internet. Tech savvy eople (like me) have been doing this for 5+ years, but its gaining more traction now b/c internet speeds are a little better and the word is getting out more. We are also working more, and irregular hours; which means that prime time tv is taking a hit. A nation of butlers, waiters, and security guards usually work at night when the main TV revenue is to be had.
This is why the cable companies want to ax net neutrality: to completely own what you watch on your internet stream. That's why PIPA/SOPA was so rejected by the masses. This is coming ot a head now b/c the companies are starting to lose money; they have no incentive or competiton to push them to create viable alternatives and instead of beating the (underground) competition, they will just have the state arrest them (and kill the 1st Amendment in the process).
"...they will just have the state arrest them (and kill the 1st Amendment in the process)." So, the cable companies and networks will just have to sell their ad time to the government in the mean time.
FIFY
Why would you want to tune into a channel featuring a bunch of smug cunts pumping Apple all day?
And, of course, there are people (like me) who pulled the plug on the tv a long, long time ago and now get the news on ... ZH!
Looks to me that CNBC gets there highest ratings during a market crash. I'm thinking instead of pumping stocks they should be talking them down if they want to stay on the air.
Look at their ratings....just noticed this, all the peaks are leading up and during presidential election process.
Otherwise their ratings seem flat since 1997 and have been in a decline since 06.
This explains a lot. The sheeple, tune to CNBC (read media) to 'learn' about the election and who to vote for....
It's still a Free Country, in some respects, BUT IF companies express their opinions, there is a price to be paid.
I cut the cable cord more than a year ago. So if I want to listen to CNBC for a bit, I listen on XM Radio.
I knew their advertising was in the toilet by the types of commercials that they were running.
It's like watching a 3am movie on a weak UHF channel back in the 70's. as far as their content goes.
They hire the best and brightest on MSNBC.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkmIaNt4Xo
Who the fuck still has cable?
You mean there are still even ONE thousand people that watch CNBC?
The market for Fedcoat propaganda is becoming crowded. CNBC is particularly ham-handed, and the propagada consumer wants something more sophisticated.
The CNBC chart looks correlated with market tops and bottoms. Today it signals buy?
Duck and Fart the FED BS.....stawks are good...stawks are good, stawks are good....
Another friend of mine (in his late 60's), cut his cable this month. I encouraged him to get a TV with apps so he could use netflix. I then showed him how to hook up his laptop to his TV.
He loves the new setup and is so glad not to "be paying for that crap". My friend is part of the demographic that is supposed to be loyal MSM watchers, but I've turned him onto ZH and he is quite excited.
"I was checking out that site you bookmarked for me the other day. Zero-hedge? Wow, that site has a lot of info - Thank you!"
People are waking up - I'm trying to help it along.
How do you get History, Science, Nat Geo, Animal Planet, etc ????
There are sites (use the google) where you can download/stream the shows on those channels, in 100% HD, onto your laptop, phone, or tablet. The live streams usually dont have the best quality while the video files usually are just ripped from whoever uploaded it from their DVR.
What's funny is that not only do people prefer saving money (obv), but this method also cuts out ALL ads.
Consumers want ad-free content, and can do so using technology. It's kinda fucking brilliant.
Watching CNBC makes me very horny, for some reason.
Amazing thing about CNBC, at least the European version, is how about 90% of the advertising is for CNBC itself. At this very moment, I'm watching a round of commercials: two for CNBC, then the weather, then back to the yahoos. So no external adverisements on that round. lol.
I don't think they care actually. Propaganda for the oligarchy just costs money. They run that psychotic commercial about the "dark side of America" every hour for the better part of a year.
I watch people stream video games more than I watch TV. and I not a young person either.
How could the network of Cramer possibly be having viewership problems?
I just can't understand it.