A la carte is capitalism in action. Those stations with a healthy audience willing to pay to watch, survive. The rest, do not. So? Think about it in relation to any of the sports channels. Many agree that the sports channels would never go for an a la carte deal. Why? Because they could never survive on that type of business model. Why? Because sports franchises need to pay their players millions of dollars per year and much of that money comes from the sports channels. They need to get their hands in your pocket, like it or not. This is not capitalism, just extortion. With a choice of paying for sports channels or not, many channels could not survive. Too much money for too few viewers. This would directly affect sports franchises and their payrolls. So? This is how business works. This is how things get balanced to rational proportions. Supply and demand. Forcing all subscribers to buy into the sports channel business model tips the balance of rational thought to the point of absurd. I enjoy sports as much as the next guy/gal. I just despise the business of sports.
The Dish on A la Carte and Capitalism
- Thread starter Anthony2
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 2K
- Status
Wrong.Anthony2 said:
The ability for two parties to come to an agreement is capitalism in action. The ability for a distributor to package channels and sell them to consumers is capitalism in action. The ability for a program provider to package their channels to a distributor is capitalism in action.
The problem here is that everything was fine when the minimal package costs half of what it does now. Consumers are trying to find ways out of the system they created by buying these packages in the first place. So, there are two true options: pony up the dough or leave with your money. In other words, vote with your wallet, which is how capitalism works for the consumer.
I get so sick and tired of the good doers who have nothing else to do but bitch about athletes who get paid handsomely for their God given talents, but yet have no problem paying actors and actresses millions of dollars to keep their favorite TV show on the air.
The same bitching you are doing about athletes could be said about actors and actresses. In the final years of Friends, the 6 cast members were paid over one million dollars per episode, multiply that by about 20 some episodes in a typical year and you get the same amount of money that professional athletes make.
You may think that's great, I don't have to pay for their salaries, but you do. You pay for salaries of actors and actresses by buying products they endorse, longer and more frequent commercial breaks, network TV shows today are shorter in length than what they were even 10 years ago, not to mention, is it just me, or does there seem to be more repeats during the TV season than what there used to be? Why is that? Gee, could it be to save money!!!! Not to mention, the classic TV shows that air on TV Land and CMT have multiple scenes deleted to add in more commercial time.
Why do you think it's so expensive to go to movies? Most if not all the money from ticket sales goes to the production companies. Why are Cd's so expensive? Most of the music goes to the artist and record company.
The same bitching you are doing about athletes could be said about actors and actresses. In the final years of Friends, the 6 cast members were paid over one million dollars per episode, multiply that by about 20 some episodes in a typical year and you get the same amount of money that professional athletes make.
You may think that's great, I don't have to pay for their salaries, but you do. You pay for salaries of actors and actresses by buying products they endorse, longer and more frequent commercial breaks, network TV shows today are shorter in length than what they were even 10 years ago, not to mention, is it just me, or does there seem to be more repeats during the TV season than what there used to be? Why is that? Gee, could it be to save money!!!! Not to mention, the classic TV shows that air on TV Land and CMT have multiple scenes deleted to add in more commercial time.
Why do you think it's so expensive to go to movies? Most if not all the money from ticket sales goes to the production companies. Why are Cd's so expensive? Most of the music goes to the artist and record company.
Anthony2 said:
garn9173 said:
A network TV show makes its money on commercial time. Actors salaries are a reflection of ratings. Do you think a sports channel can survive on commercial time sold based on ratings? My problem isn't with how much people get paid, its how their salaries are derived.
Yet many of these network channels cannot be purchased a la carte, either. As a matter of fact, most of the cablers and the satellite companies drew a line in the sand when it came to retransmission agreement payments.
Because the cablers would not accept paying for carriage of over-the-air networks, the networks leveraged in new pay-TV networks. So, F/X, ESPN2, CBS Eye on America, etc., were all a result of retransmission agreements. Now that CBS network has split from the rest of the pay-Viacom properties, it will be interesting to see if CBS charges a "fair-market value", along the lines of an ESPN, in order to create more revenue for the company.
Besides, show me the first cabler that decides not to have ESPN on their system, and I'll show you mass defections among their subscribers.
ESPN is also included in the AT60 too. I have to agree to some point with the poster on this.. ESPN has been a sore spot for years with cable/DBS in negotiating carriages. Oftentimes Disney/Hearst owned ESPN will use ESPN as leverage by locking it to other channels. Its not that people are intitled to make huge salaries.. etc.. but the sports channels demand much more in carriages.. they are the highest.. Friends.. well that is local networks.. that can even be received freely OTA.Anthony2 said:
I think the sports stations are the exception.. They, more then any other channels. are raising our cable/dbs bills. I just think its not fair that ESPN mandates that it be on all the tiers.. even the budget ones.. Only the new family tier finally knocks out ESPN but that tier is very much crippled.
Only about 1 out of 7 people are occasional viewers of ESPN. But all seven pay dearly for it. I think with current bundling models.. its fair to say that the content providers have the advantage.. supply and demand Does not play into this.. And as for the one who said we all bought into the bundle idea.... well did we ever have a choice? And carriage fee extortions are more of a problem now then they were 10 years ago.... look at cable hikes.... moving right along... briskly I may add.
If a la carte model ever gets a chance.. you can believe that ESPN would be one of the reasons that motivated the FCC or congress to do it. And if it does get a chance.. you can believe ESPN will have a rough time of it.. and that salaries would probably drop with atheletes. Friends was a bad example.. I don't care they paid them 1 million per epidsode.. I watched it free OTA... they paid them through advertisers and DVD sales. With sports, I am forced by carriage extortion by Hearst/Disney weather I like it or not. Don't think for one minute that DTV or Comcast or dish likes paying the exoribitant carriage fees from ESPN.. Its not a fair playing field when it comes to how channels are bundled.. The content providers have the advantage and its not based on viewership or worth.. no way..
I don't think the original poster is saying that.. just let him have a la carte.. or have a tier that omits ESPN and other sports networks.. and forget the pathetic family tiers.. that have little content at all.Greg Bimson said:
As far as mass defections.. less then 20 percent. Still a huge number.. but the ones in favor of dumping sports far exceeds those that want it..
I understand with bundling everyone pays carriages to carry all the niche.. bla bla bla.. However, the sports channels are beginning to cost much more then other channels.. they are taking a larger part of my DBS bill as time goes on... I don't hear others talking about high carriages with most networks.. etc.. althought Dish and lifetime are at odds right now.. Clearly, ESPN is the pig in the channel bundles when it comes to carriage increases... Thats why ESPN is getting the spotlight and rightfully so.
You just made my point.samatha6 said:
The cablers (and now the DBS companies) created tiering so they could package channels. The channels then have the ability to negotiate for placement into those tiers. And the consumer has fed this bundling over the decades by purchasing these channels.
I remember when both Disney and the local RSN were premiums. They were each about $10 per month. Funny how they both believed they'd make more money by being in the bundled, lowest-tiered package. And that was market forces at work.
And most people just don't want to understand the supply side of supply and demand: if people walk away with their wallets, the lesser demand means the supply side needs to change in order to remain viable.
But it can't happen while everyone is complaining yet feeding the pig more and more. I only need to point back to your comment:
It is a half-hearted attempt to stop the complaining. And the cablers and DBS companies are still raking in the profits, along with the content owners.samatha6 said:
Don't blame the sports teams or leagues - they grant broadcast rights to the highest bidder. Blame the system that allows unlimited bids with carte blanche to pass those fees onto unwitting customers.
This will either be self-corrected (doubtful with 5 major companies that have a hand directly in our pockets or through legislation designed to improve competition in the marketplace. That legislation is closer than ever to becoming a reality which is why the sudden rollout of Family Tiers across many providers.
Just the fact that within a month or two, all major providers have rolled out family tiers as a response to the FCC's suggestion that they should take another look at a la carte tells us exactly how little actual competition in the marketplace there is.
A very similar situation existed in the 40's or 50's with the major movie studios requiring "block booking" of their releases so theater owners were forced to carry all of the studio's releases and had no say in which individual movies they could carry. That practice was banned, and I'd expect the practice of bundling to suffer the same fate.
This will either be self-corrected (doubtful with 5 major companies that have a hand directly in our pockets or through legislation designed to improve competition in the marketplace. That legislation is closer than ever to becoming a reality which is why the sudden rollout of Family Tiers across many providers.
Just the fact that within a month or two, all major providers have rolled out family tiers as a response to the FCC's suggestion that they should take another look at a la carte tells us exactly how little actual competition in the marketplace there is.
A very similar situation existed in the 40's or 50's with the major movie studios requiring "block booking" of their releases so theater owners were forced to carry all of the studio's releases and had no say in which individual movies they could carry. That practice was banned, and I'd expect the practice of bundling to suffer the same fate.
Last edited:
The Verizon FIOS TV approach appears to make the most sense. Sports, take it or leave it. Your choice. Just want your locals. Here you go. Want all the cable channels without sports. No problem. Seems simple enough to me.
Basic service package - access to local TV channels, community and educational programming for $12.95 a month.
Expanded Basic package*
$34.95/month**
Local channels such ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX
Nearly 180 digital channels
Includes 47 all-digital music channels
Includes more than 20 high definition channels
All your favorite channels like ESPN, Discovery, TNT, MTV, CNN and more!
Sports Package
$5.95/month
More than a dozen different sports channels
Includes Fox College Sports, Outdoor Channel, GolTV, NFL Network and more
Basic service package - access to local TV channels, community and educational programming for $12.95 a month.
Expanded Basic package*
$34.95/month**
Local channels such ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX
Nearly 180 digital channels
Includes 47 all-digital music channels
Includes more than 20 high definition channels
All your favorite channels like ESPN, Discovery, TNT, MTV, CNN and more!
Sports Package
$5.95/month
More than a dozen different sports channels
Includes Fox College Sports, Outdoor Channel, GolTV, NFL Network and more
That's no different than the choices we have now.
Show me an expanded basic package that doesn't include ESPN. Unless by "Sports, take it or leave it" you mean that if you "leave it" you have to settle for the channels you can get with an antenna. That's an option we have with DBS or cable also.
Show me an expanded basic package that doesn't include ESPN. Unless by "Sports, take it or leave it" you mean that if you "leave it" you have to settle for the channels you can get with an antenna. That's an option we have with DBS or cable also.
I say do that way the (BUD) sat. companies did when I had mine in the mid 80's (after scrambling took over). Sell each channel individually, build your own pack, or pick-a-pack. I know, I know.....the fat-cat corporate execs. would try and charge and arm and a leg for their specific channel. So, when that happens, DON'T BUY THEIR CHANNEL. Many positives would come out of this.....
#1 eventually they would have to drop the price of their channel/s or they wouldn't sell them
#2 what I call the 'waiste of bandwidth channel's i.e. shopping, etc.. would disappear all together (I don't care if they pay E* or D* to carry their channels or not)
#3 there would be a lot fewer channels that showed the exact same content over and over
#4 and by losing some channels, D* and E* wouldn't have to spend as much money launching and maintaining additional satellites, not to mention constantly having to develope and manufacture new dishes with 4-5-6 lnb's on them (we all know who ends up paying for these) and new receivers or at least software upgrades to handle all of the new sats. in orbit.
Just take a minute and think about it. It worked for the 10-footers 20 years ago, and if it weren't for the little dish companies 'caving' to the networks it would still work today.
#1 eventually they would have to drop the price of their channel/s or they wouldn't sell them
#2 what I call the 'waiste of bandwidth channel's i.e. shopping, etc.. would disappear all together (I don't care if they pay E* or D* to carry their channels or not)
#3 there would be a lot fewer channels that showed the exact same content over and over
#4 and by losing some channels, D* and E* wouldn't have to spend as much money launching and maintaining additional satellites, not to mention constantly having to develope and manufacture new dishes with 4-5-6 lnb's on them (we all know who ends up paying for these) and new receivers or at least software upgrades to handle all of the new sats. in orbit.
Just take a minute and think about it. It worked for the 10-footers 20 years ago, and if it weren't for the little dish companies 'caving' to the networks it would still work today.
There's no question that allowing customer demand into the equation will result in exactly the channels and pricing that we collectively will demand. Don't believe the hype about all channels jumping to $5 - $15. That would be like Ford telling cops that if they stop buying exclusively Crown Victorias, the price will double. It's an idle threat that will be exposed when market forces enter into the mix.
- Status
Similar threads
