Is alacart even feasable? (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

fhsucade07

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 10, 2007
1,700
45
MikeD-C05 said:
I think they should use theme packs like the Canadian satellite services do. Sports packs ,News packs, Movie packs, Family packs etc. You add the packs you want and drop the ones you don't.

+1
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

inazsully

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 15, 2010
899
56
Sun City West, AZ
Haven't we discused thi enough in all the other threads?
The question I asked is totally unlike any asked before. Most of us know alacart can't work and the reasons are pretty much agreed on. My question revolves around mandated alacart programming. It's not meant to be a deadly serious question. Just a way to illustrate how certain companies, like ABC/Disney/ESPN can force carriers to have such a huge up charge for preferred channels. If you could order alacart from Dish would you pay say a $50 per month fee for ESPN? If that was the only channel you wanted would you pay the asking price?
 

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
295
43
Mankato, MN
I think they should use theme packs like the Canadian satellite services do. Sports packs ,News packs, Movie packs, Family packs etc. You add the packs you want and drop the ones you don't.

while it is a great idea the providers figured out to split channels on different themes requiring you to get more than 1 theme
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,027
1,611
The question I asked is totally unlike any asked before.

Do you really believe that? If I go back to the original post you ask about what it would cost for a la Carte. That ha been asked and discussed several times before. If you want to discuss it again fine but we have discussed feasibility, cost, the Canadian model, capitalism, etc. before.
 
Last edited:

12Toes

Active SatelliteGuys Member
Mar 6, 2006
23
5
What little bit of a la Carte exists in the market place is wildly popular (it's called netflix). We're starting to see ESPN get their toe in the game too with ESPN 3. ESPN, by the way, is the reason many stay with the old providers (my self included). It's the old provider's killer app. Interesting that ESPN bought the SEC right back in '09. That would be a nice package to offer as a streaming subscription. Can't see keeping any old provider in my house if I can stream SEC for ~$150 to $200 a year to my HTPC. Once you get ESPN's content on the net, you've got a tipping point. Like there is the music industry before and after iTunes. Game changer.

Oh, and to answer the thread topic, "is alacart even feasable?", well I'm ready to dump VH1 (no music) and MTV (no music) and Discovery (dumbed down to reality shows) and the History Channel (dumbed down like Discovery), I could go on. A lot of the channels only available in the higher tiers are what the low tier channels used to be (Music on VH1 classic, real history shows on History International, better science shows on the Science channel instead of Discovery). It's not worth another $20x12 to for me.

For me, I wouldn't mind if 70% of my channels fold. I'm not watching them anyway. But I do pay for them.
 
Last edited:

inazsully

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 15, 2010
899
56
Sun City West, AZ
Do you really believe that? If I go back to the original post you ask about what it would cost for a la Carte. That ha been asked and discussed several times before. If you want to discuss it again fine but we have discussed feasibility, cost, the Canadian model, capitalism, etc. before.
What makes the scenerio different is that we are assuming that a la cart is the only available option thus highlighting how companies like the ABC/ESPN/Disney empire must structure their individual offerings to the providers. For instance,would you be willing to pay $50 mo for ESPN as a stand alone channel? The question is how much would you be willing to pay for your favorite 12 channels and that you would undoubtedly pay less for those same 12 channels if they were bundled with 100 more channels you could care less about. It's just a what if thing that of course will never happen.
 

MikeD-C05

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 25, 2003
26,237
16,209
Nederland , Texas
while it is a great idea the providers figured out to split channels on different themes requiring you to get more than 1 theme

Sounds like they have been looking southward to the U.S. on how they force us to pick higher programming packs to get everything you want.
 

miamicanes

SatelliteGuys Family
Apr 21, 2005
39
0
Sounds like they have been looking southward to the U.S. on how they force us to pick higher programming packs to get everything you want.
Unless, say, you have zero interest in two particularly-expensive specific categories of channels... say, sports (the ESPN cartel) and children's (the Disney Mafia).

At the very least, they could maintain their price points and probably make a few million customers happier by turning it into a "Chinese Menu", where the expensive sports channels were considered to be equivalent to HBO or Showtime. For example:

America Silver/Gold -- substitute Platinum HD for the sports & kids channels

America's Top 200 -- optionally substitute HBO or Showtime for the sports channels

America's Top 250 -- optionally substitute HBO and Showtime for the sports channels and kids channels (also excluding HBO/Showtime's kids channels)

I mention the sports channels in particular because, as a group, they're probably the biggest single chunk of Dish/DirecTV/Cable's programming expenses, and they also happen to be a large, unambiguously-identifiable block of channels whose entertainment value approaches zero to specific demographics who'd be delighted to get an otherwise-"premium" channel(group) for "free" in exchange for them. No net revenue loss to the provider, happier customers.
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,027
1,611
What makes the scenerio different is that we are assuming that a la cart is the only available option thus highlighting how companies like the ABC/ESPN/Disney empire must structure their individual offerings to the providers. For instance,would you be willing to pay $50 mo for ESPN as a stand alone channel? The question is how much would you be willing to pay for your favorite 12 channels and that you would undoubtedly pay less for those same 12 channels if they were bundled with 100 more channels you could care less about. It's just a what if thing that of course will never happen.

What makes it the same is the fact that all of the topic raised (and the question itself) were discussed before. I am not going to play ping pong with this though. If you want to insist that this conversation is unique you can do so----and have the lat word.
 

Steve Mehs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 22, 2010
962
0
Marilla, NY
A la carte is a simply retarded idea. There is no other way to put it, it’ retarded, plain and simple. All a la carte will achieve is higher prices and less content and choices. Why don’t all those that support a la carte, support true a la carte. If you’re going to do something, you might as well do it right. Buy all of your TV shows on iTunes for $2 or $3 bucks a pop, and then come back here and tell me how much money you’re saving. Take the ‘Why should I pay for channels I never watch?’ argument one step farther ‘Why should I pay for a channel I only watch one show on?’ I only watch A&E for The Glades, why should I have to pay for 168 hours of programming a week on a certain channel, if I only watch it for one hour?

Bottom line is, no matter how much one bitches about it, nothings going to change. A la carte is simple not going to happen, or at least I hope it never happens, which it probably won’t.
 

miamicanes

SatelliteGuys Family
Apr 21, 2005
39
0
If I could buy the shows I genuinely care about for $2-3 apiece the day they air for the first time (instead of having to wait 3-6 months or more), I'd cancel my satellite service tomorrow and come out ahead financially. Frankly, if channels like MTV and Bravo would allow it, Time Warner/Viacom/whomever could literally start their own virtual cable companies by letting you subscribe to all of their content for a month, and having some standard DVR platform download one copy of every show a few days before the episode airs for the first time (2048-bit encryption, keys published moments before the episode airs and made available on demand thereafter). Add some minimal client-side intelligence to be a virtual VJ mixing in customized commercials in realtime, and the whole concept of broadcasting episodes over and over starts to seem kind of silly. As much as I despise Apple, I can easily see them becoming Virtual Cable Company #0 and skimming off customers like me who spend nearly every waking moment of the week online, and maybe a dozen hours per month watching actual TV shows. All that's missing is the money to break the cable/satellite industry's stranglehold on the content of Showtime, HBO, Bravo, etc... and all the industry really HAS anymore is temporary exclusivity
 

tvropro

On Vacation
Mar 9, 2007
6,872
0
A la carte is a simply retarded idea. There is no other way to put it, it’ retarded, plain and simple. All a la carte will achieve is higher prices and less content and choices.

Ala Carte can work and work well, except its all about greed now, Back in C band analog days it worked great and you saved quite a bit. Now the programmers and providers want to maximize cash flow and profit so if it was offered on pizza or cable it would be tall dollar.
 

Kb Cool

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 31, 2005
1,442
1
Mesa, AZ
Ala Carte can work and work well, except its all about greed now, Back in C band analog days it worked great and you saved quite a bit. Now the programmers and providers want to maximize cash flow and profit so if it was offered on pizza or cable it would be tall dollar.

If the middleman (charlie, Directv, SRL,ect....) was cut out of the picture and a person was able to pay the channel owner directly at the same wholesale cost that ((charlie, Directv, SRL,ect....) pay. It would work and it would be cheaper! Way cheaper! But, it would also require everyone to have cband dishes again and a receiver that was able to take multiple authorizations from any programmer on the list! As you know alacarte gets way expensive when uplinkers are involved. Eliminate the uplinker and buy direct from the source and you have a winner.
 

Scherrman

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Mar 14, 2008
15,555
9,928
Eastern Iowa
Back in the C-band days you didn't have the amount of channels available today. You all know that almost everyone that wants a la carte is a pretty big complainer and usually never satisfied? I'll bet if you actually had a la carte you would start complaining about how you are paying too much for a channel just because you watch oneh on it. Then everyone will just want to pay for just the program they wish to watch. Now we no longer have any channels, just programs that you pay to watch. Is that really what you want? I'm pretty happy just the way it is and I think most people would not be willing to give up what they have now.
 

Kb Cool

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 31, 2005
1,442
1
Mesa, AZ
Back in the C-band days you didn't have the amount of channels available today. You all know that almost everyone that wants a la carte is a pretty big complainer and usually never satisfied? I'll bet if you actually had a la carte you would start complaining about how you are paying too much for a channel just because you watch oneh on it. Then everyone will just want to pay for just the program they wish to watch. Now we no longer have any channels, just programs that you pay to watch. Is that really what you want? I'm pretty happy just the way it is and I think most people would not be willing to give up what they have now.

Even Cband was flawed from the beginning as you still had to go through a middleman that had thier hands in your pocket. Just for pushing a button to turn on the channel. 50 cents to them and 25 cents to the actual channel providing the content!:D. Now, if that same thing happened today it would be $4.00 to charlie and 50 cents to the channel owner!:(
 
Last edited:

patmurphey

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 29, 2006
1,288
424
New Jersey
Since this was posted in 2 forums, I'll copy what I wrote in the other one for feedback:

Not to beat a dead horse (a la carte does not work), I believe he is saying to keep the existing packages and price points, require a package purchase to get to a certain level of a la carte choices (individual channels in the next tier package) but allow a la carte selection of channels in the next tier until the total price is higher than the next tier's package price, which would then be more cost effective to just upgrade to the next higher tier.

Here's my real life example: Based on the channels our family watches, the AT200 package best fits our needs, but because 1 or 2 channels (Boomerang, Bio) are in the AT250 package, and my wife and daughter both don't want to go without, we are paying the extra $10 for AT250, in effect for 2 channels. If we could just get AT200 and buy BOOM and BIO for $1-2 each, we would save $6-8 a month.

Now the consumer wins because they can pay less when their viewing needs fall between 2 packages, and Dish wins in the cases where someone decides that they can't afford or don't want to upgrade to the next higher package, but can spend a few extra dollars to get some a la carte channels from that package.

I hope this is explained clearly enough.

Very clear! Because you don't want to pay $10 for the next tier and want to cherry pick from those extra channels, you and the others who do this will simply drive the price of the upgrade package higher for everyone else. Figure it out. I'm not interested in a price increase to solve your problem.
 

renegade734

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 10, 2010
451
128
Metro Detroit
Maybe subscription TV in general could be cheaper if we didn't have several channels running 'The Real Hooker Housewives of Whatever County' and 'Keeping Up With The Kardoucheians' nonstop, all day and every day. For what we pay, there should be more original programming, perhaps on fewer channels ...

... Just sayin'
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Latest posts

Top