A la Carte?

[KingFrog]

Yeah, a-la-carte works in Canada - we pay for it

Here's what happens if the US goes a-la-carte:

1) 80% of subscribers drop at least 25% of their stations
2) Cost of almost all stations goes up, as they have fewer subscribers.
3) People, even some not in the 80% above, start dropping stations to save money
4) Station prices on low-viewership stations skyrockets
5) Low viewership stations go under, and are no longer available at all, or go ppv

The reason we have bundles in the first place is to support station proliferation. More stations = better service to niche markets that cannot, themselves, sustain viewership.

If you think that those markets don't deserve to exist, make sure you're not in one of them, because all that will be left is sports, news, business, and the occasional soap or reality channel.

 

[Scherrman]

Here's what happens if the US goes a-la-carte:

1) 80% of subscribers drop at least 25% of their stations
2) Cost of almost all stations goes up, as they have fewer subscribers.
3) People, even some not in the 80% above, start dropping stations to save money
4) Station prices on low-viewership stations skyrockets
5) Low viewership stations go under, and are no longer available at all, or go ppv

The reason we have bundles in the first place is to support station proliferation. More stations = better service to niche markets that cannot, themselves, sustain viewership.

If you think that those markets don't deserve to exist, make sure you're not in one of them, because all that will be left is sports, news, business, and the occasional soap or reality channel.

DIN! DING! DING! We have a winner. This is exactly right. You explained it even better than I could. Now I just wonder if this will make sense to everyone. It will probably make sense to most but there will still be those people who don't care about what other people get to watch as long as they get what they want.

 

[pabeader]

exactly right!

the current system hides the fact that there really isn't the viewer base to support that channel. a la carte would bring that to light.

thanks for taking the time to type all that out for me.

 

[mike123abc]

Just because you can walk into Walmart and buy what you want and not have to bundle in your purchase with other items does not make products disappear. Products disappear because they are unpopular.

A la carte would not destroy the cable industry. Look at HBO/SHO/Starz/etc. They are all a la carte and have stayed in business for years, changing with the times to stay afloat (i.e. moved from just movies to new original programming).

The problem we have now is that Media Comglomerate X decides to make channels at will because they can force carriage because operators have to carry their other channels. So, they just spread their programming thinner and fill the rest up with reruns and infomercials. The system encourages this because they add a channel they can charge for it, if they were to put the programming in their current channels they probably could not charge more for them.

OTA TV was essentially a la carte for years. It is only recently they decided to start charging cable/sat for carriage. It survived. It survived by making prime time viewing full of good shows people demand to see.

 

[Ghpr13]

Just because you can walk into Walmart and buy what you want and not have to bundle in your purchase with other items does not make products disappear. Products disappear because they are unpopular.

A la carte would not destroy the cable industry. Look at HBO/SHO/Starz/etc. They are all a la carte and have stayed in business for years, changing with the times to stay afloat (i.e. moved from just movies to new original programming).

The problem we have now is that Media Comglomerate X decides to make channels at will because they can force carriage because operators have to carry their other channels. So, they just spread their programming thinner and fill the rest up with reruns and infomercials. The system encourages this because they add a channel they can charge for it, if they were to put the programming in their current channels they probably could not charge more for them.

OTA TV was essentially a la carte for years. It is only recently they decided to start charging cable/sat for carriage. It survived. It survived by making prime time viewing full of good shows people demand to see.

I think your right on this. I for one would love to see a lot of the channels out there really have to work for their viewership. As much as I like a lot of the original programming on FX, I can't stand it when they show a movie 3 or 4 times in a row. Today, with DVRs so popular, there really no reason, other then saving money, to repeat the same movie for an 6 to 8 hour time slot. Hell, if you want to take up that much time show "Shogun" or "The Godfather Saga" all in one night.
Also, I would love to see 95% of this reality crap go away!
Sorry if this turned into a rant.

Ghpr13

 

[patmurphey]

I have absolute, and I would pay about $50 a month, if I get get ONLY the channels I wanted. There are about 30 channels that I watch. So under $2 per channel. I could handle that. Hell, charge me the whole $2 per, I'd be OK with that, just to avoid all the crap that I have blocked out of my favorites now!

Truly idiotic! What does the programming part of a Dish bill cost today? (100, 200, or 250.)

 

[Yespage]

The best possible way to a la carte would be to have numerous bundles, sports, movies, premium movies, nature, science, home, etc...

But I doubt Disney wants ESPN to be on a bundle. The owners want to be able to boast viewership for advertising fees.

So in the end, go to the provider that bundles the channels the best for you.

 

[jerryez]

Channel owners base their advertising rates on how many people subscribe to their channel, not how many people watch their channel. The more subscribers, the more money they can charge. That is why Disney and everyone else bundles their channels. MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

[pabeader]

Channel owners base their advertising rates on how many people subscribe to their channel, not how many people watch their channel. The more subscribers, the more money they can charge. That is why Disney and everyone else bundles their channels. MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

yes, and????

 

[dissident]

I would support 'packages' such as a science package or sports package.. give me planet green, national geo, travel, TLC, animal, food, investigation discovery, csi, etc. together in one package for one price... don't make me pay 4+ dollars a month alone from my bill just for ESPN. I don't care about sports, and they make up the largest chunk of the monthly bill. Let the sports fans foot the bill, don't want to subsidize sports channels.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I think the theme packs that Canadian Satellite services have are the way to go . IF you want sports you add it , if you don't want sports you don't. No subsidizing sports if you don't want them. Their prices aren't any higher in Canada either so I can see ala carte theme packs working here just fine.

 

[navychop]

That might be the best compromise. Of course, if Congress doesn't limit bundling, we're in for an expensive ride, especially after a few more mergers.

 

[TalonDancer]

I think the theme packs that Canadian Satellite services have are the way to go . IF you want sports you add it , if you don't want sports you don't. No subsidizing sports if you don't want them. Their prices aren't any higher in Canada either so I can see ala carte theme packs working here just fine.

I agree. Given the responses in this thread, we are very unlikely to see true a la Carte at the channel level any time soon, if ever. Too many US subscribers are willing, even happy, to have only three basic packages + premiums, etc., and pay for bunches of channels they (almost) never watch. OTOH a la carte at the "theme' level might be both attractive to new subs and commercially viable.

A recent post included "wholesale" costs/mo. of various channels to cable/satellite TV providers. The sports channels dominated the costly end of the list. Just having the option to not sub to the sports channels would drop the cost of cable/sat TV for many homes. And a lower entry level price point just might attract a bunch of new subs who don't watch enough sports to want to sub to dedicated sports channels.

Talon Dancer

 

[dishcomm]

How do you ala carte numNuts think it would work? Dish (and all providers) would have to pay all the channels to afford your various choices...from Halmark to Logo. To get what you want, you will take it in the you know what. IMO, all of you thinking this will happen are really out of your minds. Not gonna happen.

Hey ,calm down.
Just because we have a difference of opinion does not give you the right to insult all who disagree with your point of view.

 

[dishcomm]

A la carte would not work. People are going to be paying for the most popular obvious channels and the more obscure channels will have very few people paying for them. Whats going to happen is, those obscure channels will lose so much money that they will no longer exist. The only channels that will survive will be the most popular ones.

Now think about the people that like to watch The Military Channel, RFDTV, STYLE or BIO. Those channels may dissapear due to lack of money and what will their fans watch? They will get hosed. Everyone has some kind of obscure channel that they like and would probably lose. Back to people being unhappy again.

The other side of that argument is "why should viewers of popular channels be forced to subsidize channels that so few watch.
I think the opposite of what you state should occur.
If people want niche channels THEY should pay for them. Tv should not be a welfare system that favors services that might get 5,000 viewers per day.
If those services cannot gernerate enough revenue to stay in business, then POOF! See ya. Out of buisness.

 

[MikeD-C05]

The other side of that argument is "why should viewers of popular channels be forced to subsidize channels that so few watch.
I think the opposite of what you state should occur.
If people want niche channels THEY should pay for them. Tv should not be a welfare system that favors services that might get 5,000 viewers per day.
If those services cannot gernerate enough revenue to stay in business, then POOF! See ya. Out of buisness.

You mean true capitalism and free enterprise ? What we have today is "to big to fail " corporate welfarism. We all have to pay to support their crappy niche channels and sports channels. Do we need a channel called Cooking, MTv 1, MTv 2 Vh1, Vh1-classics? Most channels are showing reruns from network tv and or old movies seen from years ago. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of these channels go away if it meant my bill going down ,instead of UP every year ,sometimes twice a year like this year's price increases were with DISH.

 

[Peter Parker]

Where's the option for not wanting??????

this is a poll about choice. His choice not yours.

 

[Lord_Vader]

"I want a la carte and would pay a little more than I am now" = Amazon VOD.

 

[pabeader]

this is a poll about choice. His choice not yours.

our choice is more to the spirit.

 

[Ilya]

I would be strongly against a la carte (don't see such option in the poll).

1. A la carte means paying more money for less channels, since fewer viewers would have to pick up the tab.

2. There are channels that I don't watch too often and wouldn't select a la carte but do watch from time to time. (Like the History channel last night!)

3. A la carte would favor established popular channels and would kill any new and niche channels.

I wouldn't mind theme packs though.