Rob Toledo

Engadget Editorial Policies

The unique content on Engadget is a result of skilled collaboration between writers and editors with broad journalistic, academic, and practical expertise.

In pursuit of our mission to provide accurate and ethical coverage, the Engadget editorial team consistently fact-checks and reviews site content to provide readers with an informative, entertaining, and engaging experience. Click here for more information on our editorial process.

Stories By Rob Toledo

  • Our Tolerance For TV Commercials is Drastically Declining

    Things have been ridiculously good for consumers the past 15 years with regards to television. We've arguably seen some of the best shows produced, access to TV online has only gotten easier, and the selection, while overwhelming at times, has no doubt skyrocketed. And with this elasticity of supply, we as consumers have certainly seen an improvement in some services competing for our precious eyeballs. Netflix, for example, releases all of its content commercial free, despite the obvious opportunity to increase revenue through advertisements. But because consumer demand is so high for an ad-free experience, Netflix knows its users would likely move on if they ever pushed this boundary. But with Netflix offering such a benefit, it now seems like the expectation of consumers is now for a far less intrusive advertising experience. Most notably, this year's Olympics has seen a massive spike on people complaining about the number of ads, despite NBC reporting that quantity is actually down. It's hard to tell if NBC is accurately reporting on this metric, but even if it's about the same as the 2012 Olympics, a lot has changed since then. Netflix became a household name, and consumers have shifted into a viewing pattern with services like DVR and on-demand, giving them the ability to fast forward through ads or skip them entirely. Exstreamist first reported this concept that consumer tolerance for adverting, especially on television, is drastically declining especially over the last four years. It makes complete sense, as if there are growing alternatives to being subjected to countless ads, so of course we as viewers would drift that direction. Netflix saves us from countless hours of commercials every year, which makes it easy to see why we'd all start changing our habits when watching television. From NBC: "Given that the commercial load was very similar to London, in fact less than London, we believe that consumption habits, such as binge-watching and 'marathoning,' have changed perceptions among the viewing audience regarding commercials" They're not wrong. But what's the creative solution here? Broadcasting the Olympics is extremely expensive, certainly, but cramming it with countless ads clearly isn't going to cut it anymore.

    By Rob Toledo Read More
  • ESPN is Proving Exactly How Not to Advance into Streaming TV

    Great news cord cutters, Disney announced this week that they are going to start offering an ESPN streaming-only option, which seems like a big step in the right direction. While some might argue that this has taken way too long, at least we're finally getting an OTT version of the sports entertainment giant, right? But the deal isn't as straightforward as it seems, as Disney also commented during their earnings call that this won't be a direct transfer of goods from cable broadcast to digital stream. Instead, the streaming version of ESPN will be scaled back, and won't include many of the ESPN programs that have made the talking heads on the network famous. Instead, the streams will be focused far more on live sports such as MLB and college athletics. So despite how it seems like ESPN is finally making the jump into the digital age, this move actually represents perhaps why ESPN has seen declining subscriber numbers and falling budgets: no foresight into the future of television. Over the past few years, the major sport leagues have pushed into digital, with the NFL and MLB making it easier than ever in 2016 to stream online with partnerships with services like Sling TV and proprietary streaming apps. The NFL just recently announced a partnership with Sling TV to bring things like RedZone and The NFL Network to cord cutters. The MLB has been great with their MLB.TV subscriptions, and this is the key: providing access at a reasonable price. With all these recent advances, it seems as if ESPN is the one that has fallen vastly behind in the push to go digital. ESPN has long been the main reason people hold onto their cable subscriptions, with live sports being the number one reason men say they still have cable. But as we move more and more into the digital age, the network has managed to fall way behind entertainment consumption trends. It has been said that ESPN's contracts with cable providers has been the most lucrative of all television networks, but even this seems to be trending downward. Disney is flush with cash and not likely that concerned about ESPN, at least not yet. They've got plenty of budget to work with when it comes to presenting a world-class product. But if they can't come around on offering a replicated version of the network digitally, how long can this sustain?

    By Rob Toledo Read More
  • STUDY: Here's Why People Still Pay for Cable

    As younger generations of television viewership grow up and out of their parents' houses, many have turned to a 'cord-never' buying philosophy, where things like cable television subscriptions just simply don't fit into the monthly budget. And as more services like Netflix, Hulu, Sling, and more crop up, it seems likely that cable subscriptions will continue to decline. Most users can get at least 70% of their entertainment by subscribing to 1-3 streaming services, at a fraction of the cost of cable. But the fact of the matter is, there are still millions of people out there that have traditional cable, and many who simply state they're likely never to cancel and are pretty set in their ways. A survey on Exstreamist.com asked 785 people why they still have cable, and the responses were interesting, especially when based off of specific demographic criteria. It appears it's more common for men to stay subscribed to cable in order to have easy access to live sports, while women prefer cable subscriptions for the wider array of TV show options. Convenience was of course a popular choice among everyone, and it's hard to disagree with the fact that having all television choices in one place with cable is still a major benefit, even despite the cost. Live sports is difficult to replace with streaming services as broadcast television have tight grips on contracts with most major sports leagues, but as digital streaming continues to grow a bigger audience, there's no doubt that leagues like the NFL, MLB, and NBA will likely follow the eyeballs. Once streaming services capable of handling live broadcasts of major sports, there's no doubt that the advertising dollars will start to exponentially increase. Interestingly, there were still plenty of people who responded to the survey by saying they still weren't sure what they would replace their cable subscriptions with, which means despite how ubiquitous "Netflix" might be in some crowds, there are plenty unaware that it can act as a cable television replacement.

    By Rob Toledo Read More