Ala Carte programming
- Thread starter pdiddy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 81
- Views 8K
- Status
The bigger issue may be they won't stream. Just as CBS isn't going to stream NFL, HBO might not stream boxing and that would be a big downer for some.
Does WWE carry PPV events as part of the basic package?
This is a topic that has been beat to death. It is an interesting one no doubt and I may be different than others but I believe we are ever so close to seeing it happen. I think the prime argument made by many is that it will be cheaper and if you only want a handful of channels it may be. My barber has a Dish Commercial account and told me just the other day that a handful of learning channels was $14, Big 10 and Pac-12 was $14 / piece and ESPN was over $20 not to mention a starter pack at $20 something.
I don't know about most but for me I'd add up so quickly that $70 month for the Top 200 would be a bargain. The channels are strategically placed so that if you like like something in "Learning A" you'd most certainly likely want "Learning B" as well. As another poster said it makes it difficult for a new channel to launch with what could be largely unproven content. The absolute best part is that it will drive competition in the form of better quality programming. And I'm doubtful most will get one channel a la carte but rather a small tier bundled together.
I thought of having my package converted to a commercial pack at one point but rather quickly saw it wouldn't be cost affective at least for me. Not an attack or anything like that - it will undoubtedly result in a cheaper package for some folks (most likely non sports fans). And then the argument of "30 channels for $45 or $50 bucks as opposed to 100 channels" when I can eliminate the garbage may play a role as well but I'd get most of those anyways as they pay to be on.
I don't know about most but for me I'd add up so quickly that $70 month for the Top 200 would be a bargain. The channels are strategically placed so that if you like like something in "Learning A" you'd most certainly likely want "Learning B" as well. As another poster said it makes it difficult for a new channel to launch with what could be largely unproven content. The absolute best part is that it will drive competition in the form of better quality programming. And I'm doubtful most will get one channel a la carte but rather a small tier bundled together.
I thought of having my package converted to a commercial pack at one point but rather quickly saw it wouldn't be cost affective at least for me. Not an attack or anything like that - it will undoubtedly result in a cheaper package for some folks (most likely non sports fans). And then the argument of "30 channels for $45 or $50 bucks as opposed to 100 channels" when I can eliminate the garbage may play a role as well but I'd get most of those anyways as they pay to be on.
I would be more inclined to buy the "cost of programming going up" argument if basic cable was commercial free... I happily pay my ~$25 for HBO and Showtime because since I've had them I haven't had to go to the video store (which used to be a weekly exercise 10 years ago), and now that they have everything they offer on demand, I haven't even had to think about a video store. Add to that, they have some great original programming... I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. They pay the rights and production fees, I pay them a monthly fee and it feels fair -- the price doesn't go up very often, and when it does, it keeps up with inflation.
First off, regarding sports -- I'm surprised that no one has mentioned how much GREED the conferences have. This is a good part of the reason why the TV bill keeps going up. The conferences aren't just content to strike their TV deals with the major networks, they want their OWN networks, and they want to demand high prices for them... For example the Pac12 -- I'm happy that DirecTV has been holding out. What ever happened to *paying for it with the advertising*? If you can't sell enough advertising to support the rights fees, then the leagues/conferences are asking too much. If the sport doesn't have enough audience to support it, that's when you do PPV. I'd LOVE to see this get to a breaking point where one of the major networks (cable and OTA) says "kiss my ass" to the say then NFL for example -- and then when they shop it around everyone else does too. Either the NFL would cave right before the first game, or no one would see football -- all the providers make the case of "did you want your TV bill to go up another $5 this year?" and the league looks like the bad guy, which is where the anger should be directed. As far as these regional conference channels, I'm surprised ANY of them have been picked up -- the providers need to take a hard stance with them and say "it's the sports tier or nothing"... If it's "nothing" then there is no audience for the advertising that they do sell. This hasn't happened because there's ALWAYS someone who will cave... and it needs to stop.
As for basic cable, it's again a case of *if you can't sell it, should it be on the air*? If they can't sell something, then obviously it means it's a bit too niche to be on basic cable... If they are providing such amazing programming that costs more than they can make back from advertising, put it up as a "mini premium" for $2-3 a month -- but drop the commercials. AMC might be able to do this... that's about the only one I can think of right now...
I've ALWAYS thought that the TV bill should be made up of 70% the actual cost of providing the service (satellites, billing, staff, equipment/backhaul to get signals etc), 20% rights fees for the most popular programming that actually drive people to subscribing to the services (ESPN would fit in here -- but maybe $.50-1 /sub MAX) and 10% pure profit... no expectation that "everyone gets paid" who provides content. You get paid a fairly token amount for carriage of your content if it's consistently highly rated, and it is determined that the benefits of providing decent content outweigh the negatives of not carrying it -- as in, it draws people to the service... in fact, it would seem that the program providers should be willing to give the channels to the providers in exchange for carriage on the lowest tiers -- more potential viewers, HIGHER RATES for advertising.
Somehow I have a feeling that it started out this way years ago, but the system got screwed up somewhere along the line -- to the point where the networks now use the viewing public to fight their battles -- and that at least one of the providers, wanting to be competitive, will ALWAYS pick up the crap... rather than uniting and telling the Pac12 for example "You mean you weren't able to get these games on ESPN or Fox? Obviously the major networks felt that the viewership wouldn't be enough to provide a return via advertising revenue... we'll go ahead and do you a favor and carry it in our basic package without charging you -- you go ahead and sell the advertising... in a couple years if the ratings are as amazing as you say they will be, come back and we'll see if we can sweeten the deal a little bit next time"...
The fact that our bills have increased 30-40% over what inflation says they should be, plus all the new taxes and fees says something...
N
First off, regarding sports -- I'm surprised that no one has mentioned how much GREED the conferences have. This is a good part of the reason why the TV bill keeps going up. The conferences aren't just content to strike their TV deals with the major networks, they want their OWN networks, and they want to demand high prices for them... For example the Pac12 -- I'm happy that DirecTV has been holding out. What ever happened to *paying for it with the advertising*? If you can't sell enough advertising to support the rights fees, then the leagues/conferences are asking too much. If the sport doesn't have enough audience to support it, that's when you do PPV. I'd LOVE to see this get to a breaking point where one of the major networks (cable and OTA) says "kiss my ass" to the say then NFL for example -- and then when they shop it around everyone else does too. Either the NFL would cave right before the first game, or no one would see football -- all the providers make the case of "did you want your TV bill to go up another $5 this year?" and the league looks like the bad guy, which is where the anger should be directed. As far as these regional conference channels, I'm surprised ANY of them have been picked up -- the providers need to take a hard stance with them and say "it's the sports tier or nothing"... If it's "nothing" then there is no audience for the advertising that they do sell. This hasn't happened because there's ALWAYS someone who will cave... and it needs to stop.
As for basic cable, it's again a case of *if you can't sell it, should it be on the air*? If they can't sell something, then obviously it means it's a bit too niche to be on basic cable... If they are providing such amazing programming that costs more than they can make back from advertising, put it up as a "mini premium" for $2-3 a month -- but drop the commercials. AMC might be able to do this... that's about the only one I can think of right now...
I've ALWAYS thought that the TV bill should be made up of 70% the actual cost of providing the service (satellites, billing, staff, equipment/backhaul to get signals etc), 20% rights fees for the most popular programming that actually drive people to subscribing to the services (ESPN would fit in here -- but maybe $.50-1 /sub MAX) and 10% pure profit... no expectation that "everyone gets paid" who provides content. You get paid a fairly token amount for carriage of your content if it's consistently highly rated, and it is determined that the benefits of providing decent content outweigh the negatives of not carrying it -- as in, it draws people to the service... in fact, it would seem that the program providers should be willing to give the channels to the providers in exchange for carriage on the lowest tiers -- more potential viewers, HIGHER RATES for advertising.
Somehow I have a feeling that it started out this way years ago, but the system got screwed up somewhere along the line -- to the point where the networks now use the viewing public to fight their battles -- and that at least one of the providers, wanting to be competitive, will ALWAYS pick up the crap... rather than uniting and telling the Pac12 for example "You mean you weren't able to get these games on ESPN or Fox? Obviously the major networks felt that the viewership wouldn't be enough to provide a return via advertising revenue... we'll go ahead and do you a favor and carry it in our basic package without charging you -- you go ahead and sell the advertising... in a couple years if the ratings are as amazing as you say they will be, come back and we'll see if we can sweeten the deal a little bit next time"...
The fact that our bills have increased 30-40% over what inflation says they should be, plus all the new taxes and fees says something...
N
And lack of that option must end.
We as consumers should have the CHOICE to choose either an a la carte option or a package option.
That isn't logical. Why would Verizon sell a la carte programming over the internet then throttle the internet to their customers?
Those fees are like airline baggage fees. The satellite and cable companies collect money for doing nothing, Fees are pure profit.
Thus, not going anywhere
A rather fatalisitc point of view, don't you think?
First, you can throw out all the outrageous numbers for programming and internet access you like. Ultimately providers will only be able to charge what the marketplace can absorb.
The current system is broken. Consumers are demanding more choices. They either will receive those choices or they will drop out. Nobody wins.
In my view, you have thrown a blanket over consumers implying all of us want champaigne on a beer budget.
You should take a consensus. You'll find most consumers will buy what they want at a fair and reasonable price.
BTW, the one thing that will have to happen is all those actors, directors and producers of less popular or seldom viewed channels will just have to find other ways to make a living.
My experience with C-Band was that it was always cheaper to pay for a package that included the channels that you wanted than it was to purchase them separately. I had C-Band for years and always found this to be true.
You're barking up the wrong tree going after the carriers.
As andreab points out, the contracts that the programmers draw up are what determines the bundling and no amount of complaining about the carriers is going to fix the Disney problem. C-band people whined about packaging and look where it got them.
No, but I would be willing to pay a higher price for individual ala carte channels, then the whole price for 200 channels, 90% which I don't watch.
My point is,if 200 channels cost say $39.00,but I only want 8 channels the cost should go down accordingly.Let's see adollar amount of what each channel cost per month,if bought ala carte.There is so much garbage everybody is stuck with in each package, it is enough to make you gag.They ought to pay us for all the commercials we turn the volume off to.
You wouldn't be paying what the cost is now. Here, I'll be you an example. Dish just and the issue with CBS. CBS wants $2 per subscriber. You can now get CBS without a cable subscription online, for $6. That's just one channel, a local even. Imagine what the others would be. Especially if they weren't pulling in the revenue anymore from the channels they force into pckages to increase their revenue even more.
That's about right, at that rate you would pay $24 per month just for the 4 major networks. Probably a little less for A&E, TCM, etc. You would get past that $39.00 well before you got to 10 channels.
those rates are what CBS hopes people will be willing to pay, I've seen nothing yet that indicates they are getting significant takers. And that's the problem with the discussion of ala carte. Lots of assumptions about how much each channel would cost with little support to show it to be true. So while I would think the channels would set some pie-in-the-sky price at first should it happen, it would quickly be followed by reductions in cost or disappearance of the channel.
- Status
Similar threads
