Study: Most Viewers Want To Limit The Pay TV Channels They Buy
- Thread starter Deadlocked
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 23
- Views 4K
and Hollywoods view on allowing viewers a choice
Cable Exec: A la Carte Poses a Threat to Hollywood's Creative Community
http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2013/09/cable-exec-a-la-carte-poses-a.php
FX Networks CEO John Landgraf said a la carte poses a threat to the Hollywood creative community, the cable industry and consumers, TheWrap.com reports.
Said Landgraf: “I think it’s a risk to the whole ecosystem.” The executive added that half the jobs in Hollywood would disappear if the current model gave way.
“If that happened, you’d see the greatest recession in the history of Hollywood," he said. "While he acknowledged 'a certain amount of genuine consumer irritation' over the current cable model and its resultant prices, he insisted that it’s still a relatively cheap form of entertainment compared to other forms of entertainment and that the current way of doing business is essential to a financially viable entertainment industry
Cable Exec: A la Carte Poses a Threat to Hollywood's Creative Community
http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2013/09/cable-exec-a-la-carte-poses-a.php
FX Networks CEO John Landgraf said a la carte poses a threat to the Hollywood creative community, the cable industry and consumers, TheWrap.com reports.
Said Landgraf: “I think it’s a risk to the whole ecosystem.” The executive added that half the jobs in Hollywood would disappear if the current model gave way.
“If that happened, you’d see the greatest recession in the history of Hollywood," he said. "While he acknowledged 'a certain amount of genuine consumer irritation' over the current cable model and its resultant prices, he insisted that it’s still a relatively cheap form of entertainment compared to other forms of entertainment and that the current way of doing business is essential to a financially viable entertainment industry
This must be the topic of the day for news outlets.
Dauman: A La Carte Not the Answer
http://www.multichannel.com/cable-operators/dauman-la-carte-not-answer/145669
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman told an industry audience Tuesday that proposals to bring a la carte programming to consumers will not lower content costs.
“When you really sit down and explain to legislators or regulators what would happen in a so-called a la carte world, it’s not good for consumers,” Dauman said at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference in New York. “The system as it exists allows a lot of choice for a reasonable price.
Dauman: A La Carte Not the Answer
http://www.multichannel.com/cable-operators/dauman-la-carte-not-answer/145669
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman told an industry audience Tuesday that proposals to bring a la carte programming to consumers will not lower content costs.
“When you really sit down and explain to legislators or regulators what would happen in a so-called a la carte world, it’s not good for consumers,” Dauman said at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference in New York. “The system as it exists allows a lot of choice for a reasonable price.
What they both are saying is: Don't mess with how much money we are making.
True! I think they are lying, shamelessly, with their bare faces hanging out. They know dang well that the present system brings them more of our money. That is why they fight a la carte tooth and nail, and lie about it every chance they get. Some execs even have the gall to suggest that, with a la carte, we would be paying more for fewer channels. Well, if that were true, these same execs would be all for it. Sure, the cost/channel might go up a bit, but we'd all subscribe to so many fewer channels that we'd be saving a lot of dough.
Unfortunately, viewers have very little say in this. Back in the early days of the big dish, you did have some ala carte when you could create your own package, but there were a lot fewer channels. Then as the media giants bought and created more and more channels, that went away. Now it is the media giants who dictate the packages. People can write as much as they want about ala carte, but I believe it will never happen.
How many different threads have been started about this over the years? To many to count.
How many different threads have been started about this over the years? To many to count.
It will only happen with Congressional intervention. I wouldn't count on Congress getting around to it any time soon though.
With the gridlock currently in Congress, I don't expect anything to happen, ever. Besides if you follow the money, the media giants have so much influence that it will never happen.
BS. BS. BS. BS. That study is BS. As soon as most people who want only less than 10 channels see a very popular program on a channel they don't get they will want it. If Breaking bad were to continue on REELZ, now you would want REELZ. There are some that only watch limited TV, and I can see they want limited services. But there are plenty of people who come home after work or school and want to watch their favorite programs, over a variety of channels.
Second, as with some posters at first here not knowing it, no one mentions you generally won't get what you think with less channels were cost is the question. Throw in what A La Carte most likely would cost and lets see the answers.
None of this means there shouldn't be a change, somehow prices have to be put in check. But this "Study" is BS.
Second, as with some posters at first here not knowing it, no one mentions you generally won't get what you think with less channels were cost is the question. Throw in what A La Carte most likely would cost and lets see the answers.
None of this means there shouldn't be a change, somehow prices have to be put in check. But this "Study" is BS.
Lets say a la carte did take off and that's what everyone did, how many channels do you think would survive and actually be available to choose from after about 3 years? I'd have to think the channel count would have to drop in half. There are so many niche channels now that I can't imagine many of them surviving unless a lot of people were willing to pay a premium. This may not be a bad thing but I think people need to be aware of it.
I agree, both that many channels may go away, and that it may be a bad thing or good thing. I have always thought the great thing about "Cable" was the variety of channels available for most everyone's taste. Seems to me to be going backwards to limit the amount of channels though at some point that might be needed.
I also think being ignored in this particular "Study" and thread (But certainly not on this forum) is the Sports connection to this which may be the real problem at least now. Already been discussed at length so won't go into that here....
I also think being ignored in this particular "Study" and thread (But certainly not on this forum) is the Sports connection to this which may be the real problem at least now. Already been discussed at length so won't go into that here....
I wouldn't mind the hundreds of channels showing daily loops of 4hrs of programming, if they weren't forced to be bundled into one or two packages on most providers. There needs to be some more variety and choice in the packaging. Bundling is the biggest problem. There are some that want all of those channels in the event they may watch 1 hr of something on some obscure channel once a year, but I believe the majority of customers probably only view 10 or fewer channels year round.
Bundling and the fragmentation of programming is the problem. I say kill off 80 or so channels, most of that programming is available on a sister network and will continue to be available should a channel cease to exist. Look at Sleuth, Dish dropped it and yet it's programming is still available on the other Comcast/NBC channels.
Bundling and the fragmentation of programming is the problem. I say kill off 80 or so channels, most of that programming is available on a sister network and will continue to be available should a channel cease to exist. Look at Sleuth, Dish dropped it and yet it's programming is still available on the other Comcast/NBC channels.
NBCU is one of the biggest fragmentors around. They have around a dozen channels that should be made into half.
Let's see...I own 3 channels that pull in $1.00/per subscriber each ($3.00 total), or I can have 6 channels that pull in $0.75 each (ooh! bundle price discount!) ($4.50 total) AND I can spread the same content to those additional channels AND have more room for infomercials to increase my ad revenue. Which should I do?
The recent new channel FXX is example of why bundle is best for Hollywood. Take programming from another channel & immediately new revenue for something that was not before. Down the line throw is 1 or 2 original & justify the channel.
Most of those so-called "niche channels" now are just dumping grounds for shows the big conglomerates paid too much for and need to amortize. Wouldn't shed a tear if a bunch of them disappeared.
When you look back on where I started in the 60s watching tv as a kid , we only had around 3 - 4 channels period. All the same programming we have today, sans the Premium movie channels , was on those same 3- 4 channels. There was no need to reproduce the same crap and spread it out over 200 miscellaneous channels with hours of repeats and infomercials taking up most of the day and night. Anyone remember when HBO and Showtime was just one channel each? The main reason to duplicate to a suite of channels for them now is to force all subs to pay more. That is why HBO went from $9.99 a month to $18.00 a month. Same content spread out over 7 channels and 1 duplicate channel in spanish.
The only reason we have the cable system we have today with forced bundling is due to one word: GREED. The channel companies found a way to force video providers to carry all their made up channels due to forced bundling and yearly extortion price hikes to keep them on. IF congress would force one thing in law it would be to end all forced bundling of channels in both SD and HD. So a company could carry only what they want and it would keep the price hikes to a lower minimum. So no more ESPN forced bundling linked with Disney and ABC . All channels would stand alone on their own merit. Would this mean we would lose a bunch of niche channels and duplicates of Espn ? YES. Would most people care? NO. You would still get the same programming you have today ,but it would be reduced down to more manageable system of cable channels. With dvrs and PTAT on DISH hoppers, there is no real need to miss any programming.
Will this change in law ever happen at a congressional level ? Doubtful. Special interests run congress now. Money talks and unfortunately there isn't a cable/satellite subscribers lobby with any money that could buy the group of us our change we so badly need. The only way it will change is when it is priced so high that the system collapses or implodes in on itself. It is only a matter of time before this happens. Between newer generations who will never pay for pay tv and older viewers who are literally dieing out every day, the amount of people that the Companies can extort is dropping each quarter. IF something doesn't change on their end, they will proverbially kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Or if new competition yet to come online, can establish what we really need to force a drop in prices: true ala cart.
The only reason we have the cable system we have today with forced bundling is due to one word: GREED. The channel companies found a way to force video providers to carry all their made up channels due to forced bundling and yearly extortion price hikes to keep them on. IF congress would force one thing in law it would be to end all forced bundling of channels in both SD and HD. So a company could carry only what they want and it would keep the price hikes to a lower minimum. So no more ESPN forced bundling linked with Disney and ABC . All channels would stand alone on their own merit. Would this mean we would lose a bunch of niche channels and duplicates of Espn ? YES. Would most people care? NO. You would still get the same programming you have today ,but it would be reduced down to more manageable system of cable channels. With dvrs and PTAT on DISH hoppers, there is no real need to miss any programming.
Will this change in law ever happen at a congressional level ? Doubtful. Special interests run congress now. Money talks and unfortunately there isn't a cable/satellite subscribers lobby with any money that could buy the group of us our change we so badly need. The only way it will change is when it is priced so high that the system collapses or implodes in on itself. It is only a matter of time before this happens. Between newer generations who will never pay for pay tv and older viewers who are literally dieing out every day, the amount of people that the Companies can extort is dropping each quarter. IF something doesn't change on their end, they will proverbially kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Or if new competition yet to come online, can establish what we really need to force a drop in prices: true ala cart.
