Cable a la Carte

[admin]

It seems to make intuitive sense - why should you have to pay for cable channels you never watch? It's not hard to see the benefit for the end user - only pay for the channels you actually watch. In my house this means no more Lifetime, TLC, MTV, VH1, BET, anything related in any way to country music, and a host more. But would I really save any money?

Discuss "Cable a la Carte" here. Read the article.

 

[jonsmirl]

It's a play list

A TV channel is just a play list that you don't control. IPTV will be the end of channels as we know them. In a few years all shows will be a la carte.

 

[10010011]

It will reduce choices in the long run because packaged deals allow niche channels to survive.

Right now I pay $50 for a lot of channels, granted I do not watch all of them. But there is always the times when nothing is on my favorites and I stumble across something interesting on a channel I never watch.

Also if you only watch on or two channels it might seem to make sense. But instead of $50 for 100 channels would you rather pay $5-10 each? If you think there are going to be a lot of 99 cent networks, forget it.

 

[MDS]

I agree with the assertion that a la carte channel selection will limit the availability of new or smaller niche channels because just like the article says, how many people would just add Mojo or some other new channel just to see if there is ever anything worth watching on it? I know I wouldn't.

The bundling of channels into packages doesn't bother me too much because I do occasionally watch things on channels I don't normally watch.

What does bother me is all the duplication and the fact that you have to pay for the basic analog tier before you can get the digital tier. With my cable nearly ALL of the stations in the analog tier are duplicated in the digital tier (and yet do not have digital audio!). Likewise many of the stations in the digital tier are available under multiple channel numbers.

TW likes to advertise 300 channels but in reality there is so much duplication that the actual number is much lower, not to mention there are things that you will NEVER watch like the shopping network, telemundo, etc.

 

[Sheep]

BCTV no longer exists... Global bought them out. Or at least, I don't get it anymore.

SheepStar

 

[fredk]

I hate the idea of paying for a bunch of stuff I don't want... wait, make that a TON, just to get to the very few channels I do want.

I voted with my $ and don't watch tv anymore. Its not worth it to me.

If the day comes where I can get the programming I want, great. If not, or if its more expensive than what I would have to pay under the current scheme, oh well.

Fred

 

[stratman]

A la carte as we understand it now won't happen, for one reason: money. I'll give you as example Direct TV. They are against a la carte for the fact that they would lose millions upon millions in advertising revenues, let me be clear on this, TV exists to sell a product called advertising, that's the primary goal, secondary to entertain, when a company comes to Direct TV looking to start an ad account they pay a premium for an advertising "package," said package must be targeted to as many numbers of people as possible(multiple channels/languages), a la carte negates carpet bombing campaign blitzes, if we all had 10 favorite channels, for example, product exposure would be kept to a minimum and if out of those 10 channels 5 or 6 are premium then advertising (revenue) is cut even further, thus forcing Direct TV to rely on more customers to pay more of the bills, so the math would be more customers to spread the costs or hike prices for less ad revenues.

 

[MDS]

a la carte negates carpet bombing campaign blitzes, if we all had 10 favorite channels, for example, product exposure would be kept to a minimum and if out of those 10 channels 5 or 6 are premium then advertising (revenue) is cut even further

But you know they would just adapt. You know the stupid little animated 'ads' for the special show that is coming up a week later that many stations (TBS in particular) place at the bottom of the screen where they usually only place the static logo?

I'll bet you dollars to donuts those kinds of animated ads would explode and watching TV would become even more unbearable.

 

[stratman]

But you know they would just adapt. You know the stupid little animated 'ads' for the special show that is coming up a week later that many stations (TBS in particular) place at the bottom of the screen where they usually only place the static logo?

I'll bet you dollars to donuts those kinds of animated ads would explode and watching TV would become even more unbearable.

I'm sure your scenario would intensify, but realistically the big corporations don't want snippets or animates what they want and pay for is saturation, have you ever surfed channels and caught the same commercial on two or three channels at almost the same time? The lifeline of cable/satellite TV is advertising, a la carte negates most of the profit and I can tell you all these companies have high paid lobby firms working in Washington making sure their little "empires" aren't affected by a la carte pricing.

 

[rfecteau]

This a la carte debate will be moot in a few years. The internet will pass cable companies by. They will all be fighting to be the last one hanging on.

Rich

 

[CableTechTalk]

Problems with mandatory a la carte

I agree with the comment above that "packaged deals allow niche channels to survive" and with the value of having channels you might not watch, because you might surf to it once in a while and discover something new.

Some of the comments seem to miss that a lot of this is driven by the current business models of the content providers (i.e., your favorite cable channel). I just addressed this on our blog this week.

www (dot) cabletechtalk (dot) com

 

[jinjuku]

Quoted from the article: "But I also recognize that there are many channels that I never would have actively chosen that I now watch on a regular basis."

So what I want to know, is do you purchase music by the album or by the track?

 

[mtrycrafts]

It seems to make intuitive sense - why should you have to pay for cable channels you never watch? It's not hard to see the benefit for the end user - only pay for the channels you actually watch. In my house this means no more Lifetime, TLC, MTV, VH1, BET, anything related in any way to country music, and a host more. But would I really save any money?
].

Why do we have to have one or the other?
Why couldn't both options be available? Perhaps some would save with a la cart and if not, they would take the package deal?
What is wrong with that? Unless, a la cart channel costs would be artificially high to discourage such choice?

 

[mtrycrafts]

So what I want to know, is do you purchase music by the album or by the track?

Yes, that is an interesting question

 

[mtrycrafts]

I agree with the comment above that "packaged deals allow niche channels to survive" and with the value of having channels you might not watch, because you might surf to it once in a while and discover something new.

Some of the comments seem to miss that a lot of this is driven by the current business models of the content providers (i.e., your favorite cable channel). I just addressed this on our blog this week.

www (dot) cabletechtalk (dot) com

Yes, but why must there not be a choice to buy either format? Perhaps I don't care what I may miss by not surfing? And, if I see the TV guide and see an interesting program offered on a channel I didn't subscribed to, and if they continue perk my interest, that channel will be on the purchase list. What is wrong with that?
Or, if I never surf, why would I care to subsidize others enjoyment? Yes, we probably subsidize much in life, but this should not be forced on us without a chance to see if there is an economic benefit for me one way or the other, no?

 

[MDS]

...this should not be forced on us without a chance to see if there is an economic benefit for me one way or the other, no?

So along those lines why not offer a la carte with the option of 'try before you buy' where you could highlight a channel or particular show on a channel you are not currently paying for and buy it for say 24 hours like you do with PPV? I'd go for that if it just expired after the trial time and I had to explicitly choose some other option to add it permanently.

But you know how something like that would be implemented if it ever did come to pass: it would automatically be added to your account and you'd have to call or write to opt-out of it. It would be just like all the 'free' offers where the 1 point font disclaimer at the bottom of the 9th page would say that the service will automatically renew at the end of the trial period and you have to call to cancel.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So along those lines why not offer a la carte with the option of 'try before you buy' where you could highlight a channel or particular show on a channel you are not currently paying for and buy it for say 24 hours like you do with PPV? I'd go for that if it just expired after the trial time and I had to explicitly choose some other option to add it permanently.

But you know how something like that would be implemented if it ever did come to pass: it would automatically be added to your account and you'd have to call or write to opt-out of it. It would be just like all the 'free' offers where the 1 point font disclaimer at the bottom of the 9th page would say that the service will automatically renew at the end of the trial period and you have to call to cancel.

That would work as well
And, the companies certainly would come up with something favoring their bottom line for sure, no matter what.

 

[aberkowitz]

Why do we have to have one or the other?
Why couldn't both options be available? Perhaps some would save with a la cart and if not, they would take the package deal?
What is wrong with that? Unless, a la cart channel costs would be artificially high to discourage such choice?

See- I think the cable companies would make certain channel costs artificially high in order to cover the high fixed cost of even being in business- which is the same model they implement now but which can be hidden better in a subscription model. For example ESPN costs around $3.50 a subscriber to the cable company (I think that's still accurate), and since a reasonably large percentage of subscribers would want that channel, you'd probably end up getting charged $4 or $5 for a la carte service. However, a less-watched channel like DIY might only cost the cable company $.25-.50 per subscriber, but in order for it to be worth it for the company to even provide it they'd probably end up jacking up the cost to $1.50-2.00 for a cost of subscription- a minimum markup of 4x the cost.

 

[STRONGBADF1]

I would like to see more diverse packages and a la carte options with the ability to "on demand"/PPV any show on any channel. (I don't ask for much) Price it as you will and let the people choose what they want or can afford. (I'm sure they will over charge accordingly)

Making PPV / on demand available even when you don't subscribe to that channel would be nice. I would have paid a reasonable fee to "on demand" The Sopranos but you have to pay for HBO to do that. (although It would have be free if I'd pay for HBO)

SBF1

 

[mtrycrafts]

See- I think the cable companies would make certain channel costs artificially high in order to cover the high fixed cost of even being in business- which is the same model they implement now but which can be hidden better in a subscription model. For example ESPN costs around $3.50 a subscriber to the cable company (I think that's still accurate), and since a reasonably large percentage of subscribers would want that channel, you'd probably end up getting charged $4 or $5 for a la carte service. However, a less-watched channel like DIY might only cost the cable company $.25-.50 per subscriber, but in order for it to be worth it for the company to even provide it they'd probably end up jacking up the cost to $1.50-2.00 for a cost of subscription- a minimum markup of 4x the cost.

Maybe the cable companies should break out their bill as some water companies do: Basic fee, meter fee, water by unit costs, up hill a lift charge, etc. then, it might get to be equitable.
But, the water company is regulated, no competition business.