Cable industry says a-la carte pricing results in higher prices.
- Thread starter guapoharry
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 3K
- Status
I did this a while back with a $50 computer, FTA, and justin.tv instead of netflix.
I have the Dish welcome pack and locals ($15) since I live in a fringe area for OTA.
I have the Dish welcome pack and locals ($15) since I live in a fringe area for OTA.
I've got the Dish welcome pak for the wife. She can't get into FTA. Her loss I say. Between OTA and FTA there's plenty for me. I figure if cable or dish subscribers could pay only for the handful of channels they really watch...the providers would be hurting. Imagine knowing you could pay $25-35 a month for channels you want instead of $100 or more for what you want, and a bunch of stuff you'll never watch. I seriously can't imagine paying $100 a month for Tv....Some pay more than that I'm sure....Blind
Itunes did alacarte for the music industry and they just announced their ten billionth sale.
I'm thinking it could work for TV
I'm thinking it could work for TV
Ala Carte is the right thing to do, which is why it won't be done. Too many lawyers staying up late nights dreaming up ways to screw the consumer, and spin it as "advocacy".
Itunes did alacarte for the music industry and they just announced their ten billionth sale.
I'm thinking it could work for TV
Cable is the problem, not the solution. High-speed Internet in South Korea makes our broadband look like dial-up, and for the many, the Internet will be the future of television distribution, I'll wager. One day everyone may very well be able to say goodbye to cable, but until then, if you really must have it, pucker-up and kiss on the bullseye hung right where they like it.
I agree! Personally, I would be more than happy to pay the same amount for programming in order to receive the 20-25 channels we actually watch than to pay one-penny for channels we do not want in our lineup. The channel mega-packs can continue to exist since they do offer value for some. To be honest, I would love to see combinations of mega-packs, a la carte, and programming packages (3 to 10 channels) that are logically grouped together. A good starting point for Pay TV providers to follow would be follow how StarChoice (aka Shaw Direct) implemented their packages, specialty bundles, and a la carte options. Here are their specialty bundles: Life Styles, Real Life, Prime Time, Music, Fun Stuff, The Nets, Your Life, FYI, Sports, Cool Stuff, More Movies, More Movies II, Smart Stuff, More Sports, Intense TV. Seriously, why should everyone fork-over $4-$5 each month for the ESPN channels when they don't watch sports? Let the folks who watch sports (me included) pay $8-$10 for these channels. The same goes for movies, etc. Just my two cents.
Programming Packages - What's on TV - Shaw Direct
http://www.shawdirect.ca/english/store/popups/Specialties.asp
Music sold by the album or song has been around for over 100 years. Apple didn't invent the concept nor should it be compared to ala carte.
I tend to agree, but studies have shown that most people (better than 85% as I recall) will continue subscribing to a Pay TV provider simply because it's more convenient...and it's what they're used to. I think it will take another 10+ years before Internet delivered content challenges the existing cable model. We shall see.
Additionally, once the local cable revenues dry-up (taxes, franchise fees) you can bet your last dollar the government will impose new ways of taxing video over the Internet.
To be honest, 70% of the programming we watch are from the broadcast networks, which we receive free over-the-air. We would gladly be FTA and OTA all-the-way if it weren't for a handful of shows we enjoy (The Closer, Fox News Channel, Deadliest Catch, etc.). Regardless, as much as we enjoy our FiOS TV services, each month we consider if the handful of programs we watch on the "cable favorites" is worth the $1000+ we're paying each year.
I don't know, if I go to iTunes I can buy one song from most any album for .99, that sounds like al-a-cart to me.
I don't think we would ever get fair pricing even with al-a-cart, and I am an advocate of al-a-cart, until some one breaks up the three big players and allows others to sell the programming, that would creat competition and lower the prices, and propbibly up the quality!
That is the reason we had such good pricing back in the day with C band.
Terry
That is the reason we had such good pricing back in the day with C band.
Terry
iTunes is/was the most successful authorized digital distribution portal for music.
Too many other differences and iTunes only comparable service, Season Passes/Subscriptions, are being passed up in favor of Hulu. (US-centric POV)
If you go to a B&M music store, you can buy "singles" as well. The model has been around for a long time.
You can buy video programs on the same basis and often from the same stores.
Ala carte, as applied to iTunes would be if they offered to sell you the entire Green Day song library for a month at a time.
Singles are a bit different, in that they were selected songs, and only for a limited time. Plus a single had at least two tracks on it.
A VHS tape may have two or three episodes, a DVD five.
The term, "Ala Carte" means similar but different things for subscription services and items you purchase once.
I thought I would do a search for the definition of a la carte:
a la carte definition
a· la carte (ä?l? kärt?, al??-)
with a separate price for each item on the menu
Terry
a la carte definition
a· la carte (ä?l? kärt?, al??-)
with a separate price for each item on the menu
Terry
shaw direct isnt so good either. i just subbed again and i had to pay about 50 bucks minimum to get 3 channels from there package choices. not really what id call al a carte. haha. they do give the option to purchase some channels alone if you get into a high enuff base package.
crackt out,.
A la carte was the normal music model for decades. That was the only form one could buy recorded music until the birth of the LP. With the birth of the LP, the industry still released singles. But the idea was that singles would help propel and drive album sales, which it did for decades more.
It wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that the industry was no longer releasing singles regularly as they were in the 60's and 70's. Some in the industry in the 90's declared the 'single' model as over, the public disagreed...
This would bring us those days when one would have to shell out $16 for a CD that only contained one good song. This was a common complaint with the consumer as some popular songs were not available as a commercial single but yet were major hits.. The Cardigan's "Lovefool" was one example. Songs that were released as singles were only available as a inferior cassette single.... (remember those)?
The original Napster and the P2P movement helped put those practices to rest. That is until the industry sued Napster and later other P2P 'services' out of existence...
I tunes and their legal answer to Napster quickly filled the void. People still wanted a la carte and I tunes was more than happy to fill the demand despite objections from the music industry that a la carte would 'cannibalize' album sales. The industry didn't want the public to have a la carte, but the public said otherwise with their wallets.
Basically if the labels weren't going to allow their albums split a la carte, the public would still find other ways to get the song...legal or otherwise. The industry now pretty much allows a la carte, they would rather put up with some of the album cannibalized (either real or imagined) than to lose a sale to P2P (which is still a major thorn in the side of the industry). There have been some hold outs, "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock was not released as a single until much much later after the song faded from the charts as I understand it.
The analogy with Cable/Satellite and the music industry seems closely related as it boiled down to consumer choice. Some of us are spending $50 a month only to watch 5 or 10 channels.
So if a la carte raises prices, OK ...I am already paying about $5 a channel (based on 10 channels that I watch). So ... if Direct TV charged $3 a channel a la carte...I'd save $20 a month...sounds like a great deal for me. I don't expect it to happen, the industry is well entrenched. But there are other sources to watch TV now like FTA, Hulu and even You Tube as well as less than reputable 'sources'.
Are we on the verge of another media revolution much like that changed the music industry 10 years ago? Will the media revolution change TV as we know it? I think it has...just started...
It wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that the industry was no longer releasing singles regularly as they were in the 60's and 70's. Some in the industry in the 90's declared the 'single' model as over, the public disagreed...
This would bring us those days when one would have to shell out $16 for a CD that only contained one good song. This was a common complaint with the consumer as some popular songs were not available as a commercial single but yet were major hits.. The Cardigan's "Lovefool" was one example. Songs that were released as singles were only available as a inferior cassette single.... (remember those)?
The original Napster and the P2P movement helped put those practices to rest. That is until the industry sued Napster and later other P2P 'services' out of existence...
I tunes and their legal answer to Napster quickly filled the void. People still wanted a la carte and I tunes was more than happy to fill the demand despite objections from the music industry that a la carte would 'cannibalize' album sales. The industry didn't want the public to have a la carte, but the public said otherwise with their wallets.
Basically if the labels weren't going to allow their albums split a la carte, the public would still find other ways to get the song...legal or otherwise. The industry now pretty much allows a la carte, they would rather put up with some of the album cannibalized (either real or imagined) than to lose a sale to P2P (which is still a major thorn in the side of the industry). There have been some hold outs, "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock was not released as a single until much much later after the song faded from the charts as I understand it.
The analogy with Cable/Satellite and the music industry seems closely related as it boiled down to consumer choice. Some of us are spending $50 a month only to watch 5 or 10 channels.
So if a la carte raises prices, OK ...I am already paying about $5 a channel (based on 10 channels that I watch). So ... if Direct TV charged $3 a channel a la carte...I'd save $20 a month...sounds like a great deal for me. I don't expect it to happen, the industry is well entrenched. But there are other sources to watch TV now like FTA, Hulu and even You Tube as well as less than reputable 'sources'.
Are we on the verge of another media revolution much like that changed the music industry 10 years ago? Will the media revolution change TV as we know it? I think it has...just started...
Last edited:
Man I argued this exact same thing on another board, I got flamed so bad I quit going there.
I am just happy that there are others who see the light, seams most here are enlightened, I have said it before I am so glad to be in this community.
Terry
- Status
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
Joey 4's Lose MOCA Internet, but Dish programming works fine- Latest: GraniteStateColin
-
-
-
