A la carte cable t.v.? Can we afford it?

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
In the a-la-carte model, channels will have to compete for a fixed available "tv entertainment" dollar. The consumer will only spend so much. So basically, they will be forced to keep their prices low or simply get priced out of the market. Channels that can't compete for that entertainment dollar will simply disappear. Sounds like normal free-market mechanism working to me.

Another thing that many fail to mention is that when you have packaged deals, the cable/sat company can steadily increase their prices each year, and you really don't have a lot of options -- it's either go along with each $1-$2 increase, or go without any cable/sat (just free OTA). With a-la-carte, the consumer can have the option of saying "hmm, you know, I really don't think MSNBC is worth $5, I think I'll keep the rest, and eliminate it from my list and keep my bill where it is today. In other words, consumers will have more control on the total cable bill. Yet another reason the cable/sat companies and content producers are against this -- they'd rather just keep steadily increasing the prices.

if you really think that you are insane.

right now many cable companies have a monopoly. if you do not want to pay what they want you are screwed. Sure there will be a price point but it is NOT going to be anywhere near it is now. it will be a lot higher.

people will pay it and they know they will. The cable company has no reason to lower prices or take less of a profit. sad part is they will get what they want.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The only valid argument those against a-la-carte have is that it's going to reduce overall variety. I suspect some channels would go under simply because there isn't a large enough section of the viewing population that would pay for them. I don't have a problem with that though.

I do. What if one of my favorites is one of your 180 crappy channels that ends up going away? Then I lose out for maybe $10-15/mo savings. No thanks, but I don't have faith in the "American Idol" watching masses to support the same kind of programming I enjoy. If I'm losing out on so much variety, I better see a dramatic benefit. I think most people would agree $10-15/mo isn't a dramatic benefit.

Plus as Mermaidman said, no red blooded American man should willingly give up his God-given right to channel surf.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
And I remember $1.25 gallons of milk and $1.50 gallons of gas in those times too.

Funny you pick out extreme inflation examples during that time period. I too could pick out irrelevant examples (what was the cost of 1 MB of memory back then compared to now). But irrelevant examples are just that, irrelevant.

Inflation (Click Me!) did make prices on average go up. But on average they went up 23.2% TOTAL from early 1999 to early 2007 (same dates as my Time Warner data above).

Time Warner went up 62.6% in that period. See how that is nearly 3 times the growth that was seen in the CPI? I don't have to go back too many more years to show how much further the prices have skyrocketted. It isn't like TV costs that much more to produce. They are just greedy and they have a monopoly (or near monopoly). Support it if you wish. But ala carte will drop prices for most people. Sure, we'll drop some useless shows and channels. But that is a good thing.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: jjones
Your later case assumes no rise in price at all for an individual channel once it goes a la carte. I do not find this assumption likely at all.

Um, you misread it then. I used a price rise in my example.

And even if they did, due to supply and demand, what happens to programming when revenues go down for that channel? They were making $3/month for 2 million subscribers, now they are only making that $3 on 1 million because half the subscribers they had don't choose to subscribe a la carte. They have to make up that lost revenue from somewhere or the programming will soon be in the toilet. What are the options then? Mostly just one, increased advertising on that channel, further degrading the audience experience.

What happens? The crappy channels and crappy shows go away. They are too costly to produce and not enough people want them. What is left? Channels that people are willing to pay for. Their revenue doesn't go down. In fact, now that advertisers can put thier money into 20 good channels instead of 100 crappy ones, each channel gets a MASSIVE increase in advertising revenue. They can have fewer ads or cut prices to the viewers due to the additional ad revenue. Heck, many channels will go to a free ala carte price. Just like with ink-jet printers (free printers but get the money from the use) channels will be free and get their revenue from ads.

Like I said earlier, I'm not entirely against a la carte, but I think a rigid a la carte system will be a disaster. And don't forget, even in a strict a la carte system, there will be a base cable service fee tacked on to the total bill of the a la carte channels you've subscribed to. The other poster's idea of getting 25 a la carte channels for $25/month is ridiculous.

Yes, there will be a base cable fee. It is the cable companies that are against ala carte, not the channels or the viewers. It won't come free. But, at least we can weed out the crap and come out with a little savings.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: skace
There is only 1 issue I see with the pay per channel routine, how does a startup channel gain popularity if no one buys it and watches it?

I agree, and how can any real man give up his right to channel surf?

Another potential logistic problem: In an a la carte model, how quickly can a provider change a subscriber's channel line-up? I pay a reasonable amount for my awesome DirecTV package and would hate to switch to an a la carte model.

Then don't! Why does everyone keep assuming this is either or...we just want the option. The option thats been available on those giant 6ft dishes outside of your local trailers for years!

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The only valid argument those against a-la-carte have is that it's going to reduce overall variety. I suspect some channels would go under simply because there isn't a large enough section of the viewing population that would pay for them. I don't have a problem with that though.

I do. What if one of my favorites is one of your 180 crappy channels that ends up going away? Then I lose out for maybe $10-15/mo savings. No thanks, but I don't have faith in the "American Idol" watching masses to support the same kind of programming I enjoy. If I'm losing out on so much variety, I better see a dramatic benefit. I think most people would agree $10-15/mo isn't a dramatic benefit.

Plus as Mermaidman said, no red blooded American man should willingly give up his God-given right to channel surf.

I agree. I'm sure channels like The Military Channel and The Science Channel would disappear with a la carte programming.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
I do. What if one of my favorites is one of your 180 crappy channels that ends up going away? Then I lose out for maybe $10-15/mo savings. No thanks, but I don't have faith in the "American Idol" watching masses to support the same kind of programming I enjoy. If I'm losing out on so much variety, I better see a dramatic benefit. I think most people would agree $10-15/mo isn't a dramatic benefit.

Basically what you are arguing here is that the shows you like are financially unsound and the only reason they exist right now is because everyone is paying for them despite a limited number of people actually watching them. I don't see why we would want to continue with a system like that. If the show can't turn a profit without being indirectly subsidized like that, it needs to rethink its distribution model.

I find it really hard to believe that most individual shows really have any noticeable part of their budget come from cable subscriptions anyway. Most of it comes from advertising during the show itself. I think this whole debate about financial support of stations is a pretty big red herring.

Plus as Mermaidman said, no red blooded American man should willingly give up his God-given right to channel surf.

You can take mine. I rarely channel surf, and when I do, I'm only looking at movie channels that I'm already paying for a la carte.

 

[JonTom]

Originally posted by: Dirigible
I am for a la carte.

Supply and demand and the free market would work everything out nicely. I would only pay if I thought a channel was worth it. A cable channel pricing itself too high would lose out. If a channel charges "vastly" more money, they had better be pretty good or they'll go out of business. If the business model won't work in a free market, my default is to let the business model die.

I will go farther, and say I not only want a la carte choice of channels, but a la carte choice of shows. I think we'll see an acceleration of content delivered over the internet, where you pay for each show. Instead of a competition between channels, each show would compete on its own. Good shows would be rewarded with an audience. Bad shows would disappear. Networks and channels would likely disappear.

Do you think you're paying too much for cable right now? Are you still paying it? How are those market forces working for you right now?

As long as there is only one network showing the ESPN lineup (to choose only one example), the concept of market forces making it work falls apart.