How are you going to get the content providers to go along with this? They are the ones that decide where their programming will, or won't go, in the tiers based on their negotiating power. The powerful providers like Disney, Viacom, and Fox aren't likely to be in favor of a la carte 'cause they make more money by bundling their lessor channels with their sought after channels.
A la Carte?
- Thread starter pabeader
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 181
- Views 16K
Your assumption is that a la carte can be added just as an extra option without affecting the rest of us. I believe that's a wrong assumption! The moment you introduce a la carte, you change the balance: some subscribers will stop paying for certain channels, which means that others will have to pay more, or the channels will have to be killed.pabeader said:
And as everyone else, I do have a list of channels that I never watch and don't mind to be killed. The problem is, that everyone's list is different!
I don't want a channel to be killed just because I don't watch it. That would be selfish. And of course, I don't want my favorite channels to be killed if they are not popular enough.
Letting the market decide and allowing just the most popular channels survive is a dangerous proposition, which would in the end significantly limit our choices. There needs to be a balance that allows new and niche channels to exist alongside with the mainstream channels.
which bothers me.
how did we get into this position in the first place? you would think the consumer (Dish/Echostar/Direct/Charter etc..) should decide what it is going to provide to it's customers. seems to me that the handle broke off that one somewhere along the way.
imagine the scene like 5-10 years ago or so ...
CEO sits in his office and gets a call from Content Provider A, "you are buying a content stream from us, we want you to buy these other ones or else we won't let you have the first one"
CEO says "Sure"
CEO should have said "Bye"
i imagine things would be much different today.
how did we get into this position in the first place? you would think the consumer (Dish/Echostar/Direct/Charter etc..) should decide what it is going to provide to it's customers. seems to me that the handle broke off that one somewhere along the way.
imagine the scene like 5-10 years ago or so ...
CEO sits in his office and gets a call from Content Provider A, "you are buying a content stream from us, we want you to buy these other ones or else we won't let you have the first one"
CEO says "Sure"
CEO should have said "Bye"
i imagine things would be much different today.
Your assumption is that a la carte can be added just as an extra option without affecting the rest of us. I believe that's a wrong assumption! The moment you introduce a la carte, you change the balance: some subscribers will stop paying for certain channels, which means that others will have to pay more, or the channels will have to be killed.
And as everyone else, I do have a list of channels that I never watch and don't mind to be killed. The problem is, that everyone's list is different!
I don't want a channel to be killed just because I don't watch it. That would be selfish. And of course, I don't want my favorite channels to be killed if they are not popular enough.
Letting the market decide and allowing just the most popular channels survive is a dangerous proposition, which would in the end significantly limit our choices. There needs to be a balance that allows new and niche channels to exist alongside with the mainstream channels.
why dangerous? niche people expect to pay more. that's part of the deal. so let them. if you like a show, pay what you are willing too, to keep it on.
pabeader said:
It's not about paying more (I wouldn't mind paying more for some of my favorite channels), it's about the existence of those channels! Some of the channels would simply not exist at all if they were not bundled.
There are no "niche" people. The tastes are different. I bet you too can name a channel or two that you personally like and don't want to lose, but that is not popular enough to survive on its own.
i truely can't think of a single channel that I would take the time to write to somebody and complain that it's gone.
would I miss a few shows, sure. but, so what? there's always my guitar.
of course there are people that know they are in a niche market and what to expect in that case. those are niche people.
Fancy car people know they are fancy car people and therefore expect to pay more. if there weren't fancy car people there wouldn't be fancy cars. yes?
would I miss a few shows, sure. but, so what? there's always my guitar.
of course there are people that know they are in a niche market and what to expect in that case. those are niche people.
Fancy car people know they are fancy car people and therefore expect to pay more. if there weren't fancy car people there wouldn't be fancy cars. yes?
It's not about paying more (I wouldn't mind paying more for some of my favorite channels), it's about the existence of those channels! Some of the channels would simply not exist at all if they were not bundled.
There are no "niche" people. The tastes are different. I bet you too can name a channel or two that you personally like and don't want to lose, but that is not popular enough to survive on its own.
But, you have to remember that channels and the programming are usually separate things. Some like Disney Channel generate most of their own programming. Others have shows produced by others.
The demanded programming would be picked up on popular stations. To be a more popular station you will have to fill your days with popular shows.
If you look at TV viewership numbers you see the real problem. ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CW have 75%+ of the viewership. You pay $5/month or free OTA to get 75% of the average viewers programming. How much does the rest of the 25% of the average viewer's programming cost?
Sure the cable industry would probably collapse. There would probably be 1/2 the number of current channels. But, the content would probably all be there, it would just be concentrated on fewer channels. Instead of watching 1-2 shows per week on a channel, you would watch it 5-6 times a week. More like the big networks.
I am not even talking about any obscure channels.
Let's take HBO as an example. A lot of people subscribe to HBO, even though it's a premium package. Suppose HBO decided to go à la carte and allowed us to subscribe to individual channels instead of forcing the bundle. What do you think would happen?
First of all, don't expect that one HBO channel would go for $2. It would be more like $7-10. I think most of HBO subs would just get one or two HBO channels and drop the rest. Which most likely will mean lower revenue for HBO. As a result, HBO would have no choice but drop the less popular channels and focus just on the two-three most popular channels. Other HBO channels (which do have some good programming) will most likely be closed due to the lack of subscribers.
Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. On one hand, you would be able to get a single most popular HBO channel without paying for the bundle. But on the other hand our overall choices would be reduced and some channels would no longer be offered, and that's my main concern regarding à la carte.
Let's take HBO as an example. A lot of people subscribe to HBO, even though it's a premium package. Suppose HBO decided to go à la carte and allowed us to subscribe to individual channels instead of forcing the bundle. What do you think would happen?
First of all, don't expect that one HBO channel would go for $2. It would be more like $7-10. I think most of HBO subs would just get one or two HBO channels and drop the rest. Which most likely will mean lower revenue for HBO. As a result, HBO would have no choice but drop the less popular channels and focus just on the two-three most popular channels. Other HBO channels (which do have some good programming) will most likely be closed due to the lack of subscribers.
Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. On one hand, you would be able to get a single most popular HBO channel without paying for the bundle. But on the other hand our overall choices would be reduced and some channels would no longer be offered, and that's my main concern regarding à la carte.
content providers get paid X from E or D
now if content providers can cut out the middle man E or D and sell to consumers directly for X + we have a winner
and sat has a unbelievable headache, since sat lacks broadband capability and latency from geo syncwould be a killer......
now if content providers can cut out the middle man E or D and sell to consumers directly for X + we have a winner
and sat has a unbelievable headache, since sat lacks broadband capability and latency from geo syncwould be a killer......
I do not think it will come down to just one channel. I think it will be small packs of channel. Like ESPN would be ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, etc. Discovery would be all their channels, or blocks of channels.
A large programmer like Disney may give a discount if you sub to both ESPN and Disney channel packs.
It would be a lot more like the HBO model. Since adding a channel to a pack does not really bring more money to the content provider they would be more encouraged to pack fewer channels with more content.
A large programmer like Disney may give a discount if you sub to both ESPN and Disney channel packs.
It would be a lot more like the HBO model. Since adding a channel to a pack does not really bring more money to the content provider they would be more encouraged to pack fewer channels with more content.
Which means less choices for us!
First, there would be less channels to choose from in general and less programs to chose from at any given moment.
Second, some content would be dropped completely in favor of more profitable content.
And third, some content we would miss by our own choice, simply because we didn't pick the right à la carte channels.
And don't expect to pay less in the end! I am pretty sure with à la carte on average we will end up paying about the same as before while having fewer content options.
Which means less choices for us!
First, there would be less channels to choose from in general and less programs to chose from at any given moment.
Second, some content would be dropped completely in favour of more profitable content.
And third, some content we would miss by our own choice, simply because we didn't pick the right à la carte channels.
And don't expect to pay less in the end! I am pretty sure with à la carte on average we will end up paying about the same as before while having fewer options.
hence my choice of "I am willing to pay more"
OH OH!! I just discovered a flaw in my poll options. Please note in this case the word "would" means "am willing", not "am expecting"
sorry for the confusion... (fades into the woodwork)
hence my choice of "I am willing to pay more"
Hence my reason number 1 against à la carte (out of the three I mentioned above):
À la carte means paying more money for less channels!
Just disable those channels in your receiver settings and donate the $4 to this forum!
can't disable them. otherwise we probably wouldn't have the conversation in the first place. can create a favorite list but that's too much trouble!
We really dont need so many channels........
just look at how many are endless repeats or paid night time programing.
channel count could probably be cut by 1/2 or more if everything but sports were DVRed.
I rarely watch anything live
so near all channels could be streamed to my internet tv box, recording just the ones I want
just look at how many are endless repeats or paid night time programing.
channel count could probably be cut by 1/2 or more if everything but sports were DVRed.
I rarely watch anything live
so near all channels could be streamed to my internet tv box, recording just the ones I want
