Ala Carte? No Thanks!

I rather pay $60 a month and get the channels I want vs $60/month and get a package that TV channel providers have contracted together. Yes it may be fewer channels, but a lot of consolidation could happen in the channel market. Outside of the OTA channels how many shows do you watch on any given network? There is a ton of filler to make more channels.

Providers now want to negotiate more channels, they spread their good shows over them so that they look like channels people want. I do not worry about losing "niche" channels. Any good shows on them will go to other channels.
 
OR..... Perhaps another way to look at it is that MAYBE those niche channels would stop asking for so much from the Providers to carry their channels in the first place.

If the Subscribers don't choose their channels, they go out of business. If they make it cheap enough that the subscriber doesn't mind adding their channel... then they can stay in business.

The main problem seems to be that we are all forced to pay for these niche channels whether we want it or not. I don't mind having the niche channels, whether I watch it much or not.. but I would much rather have the choice to have it or not to have it also.

I think there should be some accountablility on part of these niche channels. Provide decent programs at a decent rate, or else risk going out of business.

Why should we continue to pay to have these channels make money? With all of the commercials and PAID ADVERTISEMENTS that they broadcast overnight. Is that really fair for us to pay for that -so called- programming?

I say put the choice in the consumer so there is accountability on the broadcaster.

------

There are different ways that they could go about this, but as someone else mentioned.. continue to offer some basic packages, and make certain channels available ala carte. For instance, if a channel does not have a certain rating, or certain number of viewers, then it could be offered as ala carte. If that channel eventually became a "high" grade channel, then it would be included in a standard channel package.

Obviously it would take an act of Congress to get this accomplished though. Neither side is going to be able to get this done. Just look at what happens when neither can agree on the terms of a new contract. They both spend thousands of dollars on advertisements talking BS about the other. :cool:
 
Riffjim,

Okay, but isn't the reason cable exists in the first place is that we DO Want NICHE channels, but only OUR Niche Channels. All but maybe 5-10 Cable Networks could exist by themselves.


John
Many DO want niche channels, but certainly not everyone. I think the market will support a large number of diverse programming channels. Moreover, I feel that most people will continue to subscribe to a megapack because they provide the best value. However, it is my belief that people shouldn't be forced to pay for programing they don't want. While people may be able to change their provider (E*, D*, cable, FiOS), the programmers are bundling their offerings, thus making it impossible for consumers to have real programming choices. Collusion? Monopoly? Perhaps, but the ground rules must be changed.

Customers simply have very few available choices when it comes to the "fire hose" methods being used today. Ideally, I was hoping FiOS TV and seedling IPTV would help bring about more choices; however, FiOS has fallen in line with cable/satellite and IPTV is largely still waiting on the launch pad. Offhand, what does a la carte do other than offering customers more choices? It certainly doesn't limit ones ability to maintain their current programming subscription and it certainly doesn't cost more.

Perhaps we should actually "try" a la carte and see how the people feel about its effectiveness. It seems to me that if a la carte were so bad, the programmers would offer it just so they can watch it falls flat on its arse. Of course, someone once noticed, "why would anyone ever need more than 640k in their personal computer?"

The people want more programming options - they want a la carte. Why not give the people what they want...;)
 
In the early days, DISH did offer DishPix, which was ala-carte from a limited menu. I was never really cost effective, and thus unpopular.

As for the niche channels, if you were to receive only the ones you want, you would find that the overall subsrciption to YOUR channel would decrease and the content provider would need to drastically raise rates in order to stay alive. The current system works because we all pay a piece of each of these channels. If we went to ala-carte, my suspicion is that our bill would not go down, but our choices would be drastically reduced.

Program providers already charge based on viewership. This is why ESPN gets more $/subscriber than say DIY Network.
 
That is the main reason I am against a la carte. My "niche channel" may be your must-see TV. And if half of the channels go belly up, then what exactly has been accomplished?

Or go the other direction with this. Imagine Dish Network is able to start offering some kind of a la carte. When everyone is attempting to reduce their bills by choosing a la carte, that will also reduce Dish Network's revenues, as almost all subscribers would pay less than they are now.


Agreed!
 
The web's a great place to research and more

A trip down the web reveals a curiously omitted long standing fact; of all the “basic package” programming offered, the highest rated channels are the ones that are and have always been…gasp…free! Don’t believe me, just check out PBS dot org’s corporate facts page.

Even the one with NO commercial ad revenue stream…PBS…ties ESPN’s extremely overpriced niche channel. Viewer ship ratings on the rest of the subscriber supported offerings (yes they have ad revenue as well) are dismal by comparison.

The proof is in the pudding, quality programming lines the source provider’s pockets like nothing else and by extension, the system that delivers it as well.

If channels that get the bulk of their revenue under a non subscriber model capture audiences far greater than those that do, then the current high sub rates simply subsidizes an inferior product and conventional business wisdom would suggest improving program quality would be more productive.

Most of us have seen the high power advertising during sporting events so arguing that channels with that type of programming will falter doesn’t hold much muster with me. The more logical conclusion is the obscenely high revenue streams have been paying for an artificially high infrastructure build up rate that smart and successful businesses know well enough to avoid.

You can’t build a high tech, hi def, and wide spread sports casting system like ESPN and FOX have without incurring equally obscenely high capital expenditures and it couldn’t have been done with out a matching outrageous revenue stream.

So since these are some of those niche channels then YES they definitely should cost proportionately more, after all you’re getting what you pay for. But under no circumstances should those who don’t even watch any type of sports programming have to subsidize dozens of the biggest cash cows in the system.

Those subsidized build ups as many of us know have been funded by the likes of much bigger channels like ABC, Disney and FOX studios. We all know where Papa Disney got his start…that’s right…just like ABC… Hollywood and supplying FREE TV.

Satellite providers can retain their lead in video content delivery bandwidth by jumping to the forefront or stand greedily by as all that copper steadily turns into glass snatching the wind from the birds’ wings as they do.
 
Broadcast and Basic Cable

So you are saying that PBS's website say THEY are included in the top ratings channels? What was their rank as they listed it? Can you please post a link? I read this after searching per your request.

By a Nose So Far, Disney Channel is No. 1 Cable Channel in 2007* - 12/27/2007 12:38:00 PM - Multichannel News

AND

Disney Channel Crowned Final 2007 Ratings Winner - 1/3/2008 9:36:00 AM - Multichannel News

The Graph on the PBS website …

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp.html

is comparing ratings of basic cable and broadcast network stations during prime time. I am not sure why Disney wasn’t included but it’s probably due to not being included in the basic tier of channels.

An interesting tidbit from what you found is this;

c/p “With a just a week left in the year, Disney Channel is No. 1 in the primetime ratings for cable in 2007, just a slip ahead of USA”

On PBS’s bar graph you will find USA (1.7) listed between PBS (1.4) and CW (1.8)

Bear in mind that my point is it takes a highly rated cable channel to come close to a broadcast network station and only USA and apparently Disney can even beat PBS.

So….what does that say about survivability without subscriber support?

If the general rule of thumb in capitalism is…“You Get What You Pay For”…it would seem the opposite holds true for television programming. The less you pay…the more you get in terms of quality programming. Why…because advertisers are willing to pay more for high quality programming slots.

Ala Carte would FORCE stations to improve quality, consolidate, or die; just as it should be. For all of you who fear your niche stations would be lost, they might be but any quality programming on them would just move to a surviving channel since the program drives the rating not the channel.
 
In the early days, DISH did offer DishPix, which was ala-carte from a limited menu. I was never really cost effective, and thus unpopular.

I have to call BS on this one.

The package was $15 for 10 channels. However, viacom channels and Disney channels were not part of the package because the channel providers refused to allow it! So it removed the most popular channels from the list of choices: No Nickelodeon, ESPN, MTV or Disney Channel. Disney channel by itself was $10. Not because that is the price it should have been in a competative atmosphere, but because they knew they could package other less popular channels with it and therefore force people to pay more. Yes you got a lot more channels for only $5 more, but they, for the most part were channels that would fail, change formats to attract a larger audience or sell out to biugger players eventually anyway!

Nothing would change in an a la carte system other than the providers couldn't gouge on the popular channels to support POS channels few people even care about!

I am baffled at how many otherwise intelligent people think that orange growers will go out of business if you stop forcing people who buy apples to buy oranges with the apples as a package!

In ANY other sector of the economy, even fast food restaurants, you have a choice to go with a package or a la carte! Why is it so difficult to think that cable channels are any different?

See ya
Tony
 
TNGTony said:
I have to call BS on this one.

The package was $15 for 10 channels. However, viacom channels and Disney channels were not part of the package because the channel providers refused to allow it!
I'll be happy to agree, but to a point.

Imagine two things here, if a la carte took on this form:
1) that overnight 4 million Dish Network subs take on this $15 package
2) that it would cost more to pick channels from either Viacom or Disney/ESPN.

Can you imagine the financial hit to Dish Network's bottom line?
TNGTony said:
Nothing would change in an a la carte system other than the providers couldn't gouge on the popular channels to support POS channels few people even care about!
DirecTV had their Investor Day presentation.

DirecTV stated that 40 percent of their revenue goes to programming costs. Which means with a $40 montly bill, the programmers receive $16 and DirecTV uses the $24 for other expenses, such as their workforce, any infrastructure needs such as electric and phone, etc. And let's not forget about profit.

We are now getting to the point where lightbulbs will go off and people will realize a la carte is an idealistic pipe dream. Somehow, most people believe it is in the name of reducing your bill, but as I just showed, there are other ways for the bills to be reduced. DirecTV and Dish Network don't need to charge as much, for one, but we never hear about that.
 
In the early days, DISH did offer DishPix, which was ala-carte from a limited menu. It was never really cost effective, and thus unpopular.

I have to call BS on this one.

The package was $15 for 10 channels. However, viacom channels and Disney channels were not part of the package because the channel providers refused to allow it! So it removed the most popular channels from the list of choices: No Nickelodeon, ESPN, MTV or Disney Channel.
Uh, isn't that essentially what I said in less detail?

Disney channel by itself was $10. Not because that is the price it should have been in a competative atmosphere, but because they knew they could package other less popular channels with it and therefore force people to pay more. Yes you got a lot more channels for only $5 more, but they, for the most part were channels that would fail, change formats to attract a larger audience or sell out to biugger players eventually anyway!

The timeframe where DishPics was available was about the same time as when Disney stopped being a premium channel. In the early days, you had to buy it like HBO, so it was essentially ala-carte. So that was how Disney valued themselves, and their decision to go into a standard pack showed that they had proven to themselves that asn ala-carte model wasn't working for them.

I am baffled at how many otherwise intelligent people think that orange growers will go out of business if you stop forcing people who buy apples to buy oranges with the apples as a package!
And I am in turn baffled when people think that you will pay less by buying the orange as separately priced peel, pulp, juice and seeds.

In ANY other sector of the economy, even fast food restaurants, you have a choice to go with a package or a la carte! Why is it so difficult to think that cable channels are any different?
ANY other sector? Can I bring my own aspirins into the hospital? Can I save money by purchasing DVD cases in bulk and just buying the disc? Have you gone to the supermarket and tried to buy just one egg? How easy is it to buy a car these days without a heater or a radio? Bundling is they way we do business in this economy.
 
Say ESPN and many of its programs; they can buy the rights to things because of the money they make across the board; but if only sports enthusiasts paid, they would either make far less money and cut off the programming OR they would hike the per subscriber rates thought the roof to maintain a level of income to continue to pay for the expected programming.

Does this argument make sense to anyone else? To me if seems as if he is saying that if everyone else doesn't support sports fans, they would be able to watch what's being broadcast.

If viewers cannot afford the rate that ESPN requires, perhaps ESPN is charging too much. Could that be because they are paying too much for the rights to broadcast? Isn't that how the free market system is supposed to work?

Right now it doesn't matter if we want ESPN or not. We're going to pay for it anyway. If those of us who don't want it don't have to pay for it, ESPN and the fans who want it would have to negotiate with each other and leave the rest of us out of it.

This is the same way HBO and Showtime work. Why can't it work for ESPN, or TNT, or Spike TV?

The entire 'a la carte won't work' argument hinges on one channel subsidizing another. If a niche channel is too expensive for its viewers and advertisers to pay for, I am at a loss to understand why someone else has to pay for it.
 
Uh, isn't that essentially what I said in less detail?

No. It wasn't.

You said the package was unpopular. You never mentioned WHY it was less popular. The "extra" detail is the reason why. Without MTV, ESPN, Nickelodeon and others most people won't even consider cable! It wasn't the "cost effectiveness" as much as it was the lack of choice!

A TV show gets canceled. Was it because it was no good? Sure. If it was any good, people would watch it. But how about if you continually pre-empt the show and put it on at off hours so no one can find it. It was still unpopular, but not necessarily because it was no good.

Look, I know I am not going to convince the FUD slinging "it'll never work" crowd. I am just baffled and completely aghast at the mentality that FORCING people to buy something completely unrelated to what they want to buy is good. I want a certain product. The cable/satellite industry is really the ONLY place where it is common practice.

Yes these companies have overhead. How can we take care of that? Perhaps the same way ALL OTHER utilities work? There is a set fee per moth for the service. Use it, don't use it, the cost for Gas for me is $8 a month. That is the infrastructure cost (delivery cost). Each CCF is charged on top of that. And they make a profit (not much, but some) on each CCF.

Cable/Satellite could have a basic subscription fee for infrastructure costs and have a menu of channels. It can easily be done and though most people would still spend way too much on TV, it would be on what they want to watch and nothing else!

The predictions of gloom, doom, riots in the streets and all media companies suddenly giving up on the niche markets is a load of CRAP! The market will work itself out as it always does! Channels that are charging cable companies now will gladly GIVE AWAY their signal to keep viewership in an a la carte world and survive off of ad revenues.

Only the most popular channels will continue to charge.

BTW Disney went from a subscription service to a basic service because it figured it could extract more money from us, the subscribers by forcing those that did not want the channel to pay for it anyway! They leveraged ESPN and ABC to do so and in turn was responsible for a significant hike in everyone's cable and satellite fees over a five year period. In this area Disney by itself raided the cable bill by iver $1.50 a month. This is just ONE channel doing this to everyone! Let's not even start with ESPN!

The $10 a month Disney channel was dying because it was overpriced and not enough people subscribed to it. If it would have sold itself for a couple or three dollars (a little more than it charges EVERYONE now) it could still survive just fine because most everyone with kids would keep the channel! Econ101. Lower margins::Increase Profits in the long run

See ya
Tony
 
Here's what's in my crystal ball...

Once high-speed internet is the norm in every household in America, VOD direct from the content producers will be the most popular form of distribution.

Every household? Not everyone lives in a city.

I will never have DSL or cable available.

Satellite has FAPs. I'm thankful for Wildblue, even at $80 a month, but VOD is not an option.

Perhaps powerline ISPs might be my only hope. But there's plenty of people who live off the grid.
 
TNGTony said:
BTW Disney went from a subscription service to a basic service because it figured it could extract more money from us, the subscribers by forcing those that did not want the channel to pay for it anyway! They leveraged ESPN and ABC to do so and in turn was responsible for a significant hike in everyone's cable and satellite fees over a five year period. In this area Disney by itself raided the cable bill by iver $1.50 a month. This is just ONE channel doing this to everyone! Let's not even start with ESPN!
But once again, even with these yearly price increases, programming costs DirecTV 40 percent of their income. The percentage of income sent to the programmers has basically remained unchanged, so it stands to reason when the multichannel vendors raise their rates, they are also keeping a good-sized chunk for themselves. It isn't only programming that is causing the raising rates.
TNGTony said:
The "extra" detail is the reason why. Without MTV, ESPN, Nickelodeon and others most people won't even consider cable!
Without those channels "a la carte" in DishPix, right? Going back to my point number two, imagine those channels became available, in a separate "DishPix" tier, at $30 for 10 channels. Not cost-effective any more, is it?
TNGTony said:
The predictions of gloom, doom, riots in the streets and all media companies suddenly giving up on the niche markets is a load of CRAP! The market will work itself out as it always does! Channels that are charging cable companies now will gladly GIVE AWAY their signal to keep viewership in an a la carte world and survive off of ad revenues.
This is where I take a touch of offense. The belief is that any new "regulation" will fix the problem, and that "the market will work itself out." The point lost here is that the market has worked itself out over all of these years, it is just there are many that don't like how the market operates. And it is usually based on the faulty belief that a la carte will make bills cheaper.
TNGTony said:
The $10 a month Disney channel was dying because it was overpriced and not enough people subscribed to it. If it would have sold itself for a couple or three dollars (a little more than it charges EVERYONE now) it could still survive just fine because most everyone with kids would keep the channel! Econ101. Lower margins::Increase Profits in the long run
Not if Nickelodeon is cheaper. Or Cartoon Network. I don't need to subscribe to three different kids-based packages. Now which two of the three get to suffer when I choose the one I want for my kids?
 
No. It wasn't.

You said the package was unpopular. You never mentioned WHY it was less popular. The "extra" detail is the reason why. Without MTV, ESPN, Nickelodeon and others most people won't even consider cable! It wasn't the "cost effectiveness" as much as it was the lack of choice!
Well, I did say it was because it wasn't cost effective. I also cited limited choice. I guess I should have written a book instead of a sentence here. Look, we are not really disagreeing on this point, but I guess my hackles are raised because you accused me of spouting BS when I disagreed with you. That brings me to:
Look, I know I am not going to convince the FUD slinging "it'll never work" crowd. I am just baffled and completely aghast at the mentality that FORCING people to buy something completely unrelated to what they want to buy is good. I want a certain product. The cable/satellite industry is really the ONLY place where it is common practice.
I am becoming concerned at how easily we are starting to sling that FUD obscenity at anyone who disagrees with us. Tony, I generally respect your opinion. I respect this one, but I don't happen to agree with it. You seem to be absolutely positive you are correct. I am a little less certain, but I don't think open ala-carte will work as wel as what we have now.

First, I don't think we will end up having an opportunity to see this because the current system is working for the content providers and common carriers. You think not? 80% of US homes are connected to some sort of cable or satellite system. I think that could be considered "significant market penetration". Tony, if you can convince 5 or 6 million of your closest friends to disconnect until ala-carte is available, they might just listen to you. No incentive now.

Second, you have said nothing that changes my mind about cost/benefit. I believe that ala-carte would end up costing about the same as we pay now, but we would only get our first level choices. Right now, I have the ability to lock out ESPN, highlight TCM, but still keep Bravo available as a second tier choice. I believe I have more flexibility for the same price.

I can get behind smaller packages and selecting one or more. Say something like sports (the obvious one), movies, family, women's, men's, lifestyle, etc. This would have 5-15 channels per group and might work. However, I suspect that there would be just as much bickering about the "useless" channels in each group. Someone is saying "I gotta buy that expensive ESPN, just to get Speed" and someone else saying "That useless Speed channel is driving up the price of my football"

The exception to this not happening is if the government got involved. McCain has said that he supports ala-carte. If he is elected, I could see legislation happening. I don't consider this a good thing. A lot of people on this board argue against government regulation of anything, example healthcare. They use the argument that the government never gets it right and we end up paying more for less than if they had let industry regulate themselves. Why would you believe it would be different in this case. The government would probably write a bill where you had to pay an unregulated access fee and would allow the operator to provide a "standard pack" followed by unregulated ala-carte options. That bill would allow the operator to do business the same way they are doing it now, except that there would be an additional blessed access fee, and probably a new "national cable tax"

Finally, as Greg pointed out, the cable companies only give 40% to the providers and keep about 60% for themselves. This system is again working well for them. When ESPN raises its rates $1, the carrier gets to raise its rates $2.50 (1/.4) and blame ESPN for the increase. Why would they possibly want to get rid of that sweetheart deal?
 
If in any other part of the economy, some one told you you had to buy an unrelated item to get the item you want, you'd scream bloody murder, colusion and maybe even file a law suit!

How much money does a brick & mortar store get for any one item they sell? I bet you it's much, much less than 60%!!!!

Saying "A la carte won't work" is absolute FUD! How do I know this? Look at EVERY other part of ANY consumer service!!! EVERYTHING is a la carte! Even untilities like phone, electric and gas are a la carte!

I can have basic "dial-tone" metered service for $12 a month. I can add or take away from that any service I want. I can have any individual feature without having to have any other feature. Or, I can get a package called "complete connections that includes everything for less than if I would have bought them a la carte. But you see, I want "dial tone" and unlisted service with number only caller ID for $14. I do not want complete connections which is what I would have to get to get the same thing in a package for $39.95 a month!

Why can't cable do that? Because they don't want to. They (media/cable industry) have also brainwashed much of the population and legislators to believe that "it can't be done" and "it will never work".

Would packages be cheaper for those that want it all, or at least a ton of channels? Yup! Would most people get a package if available? Yup! Would a la carte kill cable, cause childern to use durgs, kill plant life, crash the stock market, and cause even more global warming? Nope!
Can you have a la carte AND packages at the same time? HELL YES! Nothing says that one has to preclude the other! It's all about customer choice.

See ya
Tony

--BTW: For those that do not know
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
It is not a slur or an insult.
 

Echostar Satellite Launch Failure

A Cup of Positive Juice

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)