Rather than hijacking the thread (LINK) where folks are posting their 10 chosen television channels, I thought I would start a separate discussion of the conclusions that can be guessed from the lists presented in that thread.
Essentially, the underlying issue that we have to keep in mind is that some folks want to pass new laws requiring customers be able to do just what that other thread is positing: Just select the channels that you want, instead of being forced to purchase tiers of service, blocks of channels, including many you don't want.
Overall, consumers would save a little bit of money, but not much. Pricing in such an environment would adjust to the fact that folks can subscribe to individual channels one at a time, with an access fee imposed of probably around $20 before the first channel is selected, and then each channel would cost $1-$4 per month, with most costing about $2.
The reason why this hasn't happened is that, at those prices, only the most popular channels will survive. This would bring about a substantial homogenization of programming available, basically returning us to the 1950s, when basically everything on television appealed to the same group of people (except this time, it is likely to skew a lot younger in appeal). Minorities would be especially hurt by channels intended to serve them shutting down.
One approach to mitigating this would be to apply a subsidy. Indeed, the $20, that I speculated about above, includes such a subsidy, that would be used to keep a few channels, aimed at racial, cultural and other minority interests on the air. However, social interest minorities -- in other words, niche hobby interests -- would of course not be subsidized, and would not be serviced.
Below is the summary of what folks have posted in the other thread, through Post 33. In each case, I'm only counting the first 10 choices each poster made, and treating all 10 the same (since if you subscribe to a channel, the channel doesn't care about whether it is your #1 or your #10). Of course, some people would subscribe to more channels, but this is still going to provide an interesting bit of information about what would likely survive, if we were typical people, versus what wouldn't survive.
{Note: Comments below are based on the results up to Post #32 in that other thread. The results above reflect later entries by posters in that thread.}
I'm sure that there is no surprise that four of the top five are national broadcast networks. While these channels could, by law, insist that they're forced on every customer, that's immaterial since it is clear that practically everyone wants at least a few of them. However, it also underscores how these channels are so popular that they can charge the cable and satellite service providers a good amount per subscriber, as many of them are already doing. It remains to be seen if the cable and satellite service providers start passing that cost on to us.
The biggest surprise, for me, was how well Scripps Networks did: Food Network and HGTV fill-out the top seven. There is little doubt that, in a country where everyone was like us, these two networks would survive a la carte pricing, and probably command top-dollar, perhaps as high as $3 per month.
Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, History Channel, Sci Fi, Bravo, TNT, CNN, and (unremarkably) Disney, also did well enough to most likely survive, though they'll likely be charging on the lower end of the scale, from $1-$2 per month. I think we need to include USA and TBS, in that group, as well, and perhaps VH1 and TCM.
ESPN is highly rated on our list, as well. However, keep in mind that ESPN is the most expensive cable channel already. Can they command $4 per subscriber, which they'll need to maintain their current revenue? Doubtful, so their programming will likely suffer a bit.
HBO and Showtime are special cases. Yes, they're lower on the list, but they are already charging per subscriber, and about 3-4 times as much as any of the other channels would be charging. So they'll be there, and do just fine.
PBS, CW and local independent broadcast channels are another special case. The difference is, though, that, by law, these channels can insist they be forced on every subscriber, though if they do so they cannot command a payment from each subscriber. However, with mandatory carriage, they can command enough from advertisers to survive. However, we might see less or cheaper programming -- we actually already are seeing that: CW is turning five hours of network time on Sundays back over to their affiliates, in October.
Now we get to networks that aren't going to be doing too well. These are the channels that would need to charge each of their own subscribers way more than $3 in order to make up for the fact that they're no longer getting the 35c-75c from every subscriber.
Fox News and MSNBC are likely candidates to be subsidized by their parent companies.
MTV Networks will have to decide what to do with their array of channels; perhaps their operations can be optimized so that the cost of each incremental network is very small. As such, the strength of VH1 in our list (above) may indicate enough support for all of MTV's networks, including Palladia, TV Land, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, and MTV, itself. More likely, we'll see some consolidation, there, with a lot of the weaker programming on each channel being discarded, and perhaps three channels replace five.
I have no idea what Fox will do about FX. Our results here do seem to jive with the actual reality: FX, despite substantial investments in very high quality programming, just doesn't command the commensurate attention of audiences. It is possible that Fox will subsidize FX, just to keep the channel slot on satellite and cable systems nationwide, and keep trying new things to find a blockbuster.
In this group also is ABC Family; however worst case, there, is simply combining Disney and ABC Family. Similarly, Sleuth can be combined with Bravo (I think), and ESPN2 with ESPN. Animal Planet can be folded into Discovery, or perhaps subsidized by Discovery.
There are some more channels left in this group: AMC, Hallmark, National Geographic, BBC America, Lifetime, NFL, etc. These are channels, including one of my favorites, that I suppose might survive, but I tend to doubt it. They don't have the underpinnings of a strong congolmerate of channels beneath them, and clearly their appeal is limited. They are, today, ostensibly being subsidized by other channels on the same tier of service that they are placed on by the cable or satellite service provider. AMC and WE could perhaps be combined together, but putting together two weak channels doesn't make a strong channel.
NFL's recent experience is interesting, in this context. They fought very hard for the right to be put on a lower tier of service by major service providers, even going to court to make it happen. If a la carte was imposed, though, that would trump what they recently have won with their efforts: They cannot force customers to choose their channel in an a la carte arrangement. (Of course, NFL might rank higher, in a non-DIS boards environment. However, if you look at the hard numbers, that's not actually the case. The biggest complaints about NFL's recent legal actions was that they were basically imposing themselves on a customer-base that for the most part did not want them, and surely didn't want to pay the relatively high price they were demanding.)
Some other very low-ranked channels would be safe, regardless: CSPAN is already subsidized by cable and satellite providers, so that won't change. E! and Style are both already substantially subsized by Comcast, and so they're probably safe. QVC pays for the privilege of being carried, so it and all other home shopping channels are safe.
Then come the channels that probably have no chance, whatsoever in an a la carte world. If our numbers are to be believed, we can say goodbye to CMT, Ovation, Oxygen, SoapNet, truTV, Logo, History International, Spike, and all the channels that no one in that other thread mentioned.
With a few exceptions: First, many of the channels not mentioned in that other thread are channels of limited interest, but serving the needs of specific racial, cultural or other protected groups. It is believed that such channels will be protected by any law that puts a la carte pricing in place (and would have been protected by law even if a la carte pricing was put into place voluntarily). So all of us would pay a certain amount, which would be divied up among these racial, cultural, etc., interest channels, to ensure that they survive.
Also, the channels that face extinction can give over vast portions of their programming day to home shopping and infomercials. That very effectively replaces their lost revenue from cable and satellite providers. However, cable and satellite providers generally expect payments from home shopping channels, so when a niche interest channel becomes more than half home shopping, it may face being dropped from cable and satellite systems just on that reason alone.
How did your favorite stations do in this survey? How do you feel about the possibility of these changes coming to pass?
Essentially, the underlying issue that we have to keep in mind is that some folks want to pass new laws requiring customers be able to do just what that other thread is positing: Just select the channels that you want, instead of being forced to purchase tiers of service, blocks of channels, including many you don't want.
Overall, consumers would save a little bit of money, but not much. Pricing in such an environment would adjust to the fact that folks can subscribe to individual channels one at a time, with an access fee imposed of probably around $20 before the first channel is selected, and then each channel would cost $1-$4 per month, with most costing about $2.
The reason why this hasn't happened is that, at those prices, only the most popular channels will survive. This would bring about a substantial homogenization of programming available, basically returning us to the 1950s, when basically everything on television appealed to the same group of people (except this time, it is likely to skew a lot younger in appeal). Minorities would be especially hurt by channels intended to serve them shutting down.
One approach to mitigating this would be to apply a subsidy. Indeed, the $20, that I speculated about above, includes such a subsidy, that would be used to keep a few channels, aimed at racial, cultural and other minority interests on the air. However, social interest minorities -- in other words, niche hobby interests -- would of course not be subsidized, and would not be serviced.
Below is the summary of what folks have posted in the other thread, through Post 33. In each case, I'm only counting the first 10 choices each poster made, and treating all 10 the same (since if you subscribe to a channel, the channel doesn't care about whether it is your #1 or your #10). Of course, some people would subscribe to more channels, but this is still going to provide an interesting bit of information about what would likely survive, if we were typical people, versus what wouldn't survive.
Code:
5 A&E
18 ABC
3 ABC Family
3 AMC
3 Animal Planet
2 BBC America
8 Bravo
1 Catholic
13 CBS
1 CMT
8 CNN
1 CSPAN
5 CW
2 Cartoon
3 Comedy Central
10 Discovery
3 Discovery Health
6 Disney
1 E!
7 ESPN
1 ESPN2
2 FX
16 Food Network
15 Fox
3 Fox News
5 HBO
12 HGTV
4 Hallmark
7 History
1 History International
2 Lifetime
4 Local Independent
1 Logo
1 Military
2 MSNBC
1 MTV
16 NBC
2 NFL
3 National Geo
1 Nick at Night
1 Nickelodeon
1 Ovation
1 Oxygen
4 PBS
2 QVC
3 Regional Sports
7 Sci Fi
2 Showtime
2 Sleuth
1 SoapNet
1 Sony
2 Spike
2 Style
5 TBS
5 TCM
7 TLC
7 TNT
3 TV Land
1 TVG
11 Travel
6 USA
5 VH1
2 WE
9 Weather
1 truTV{Note: Comments below are based on the results up to Post #32 in that other thread. The results above reflect later entries by posters in that thread.}
I'm sure that there is no surprise that four of the top five are national broadcast networks. While these channels could, by law, insist that they're forced on every customer, that's immaterial since it is clear that practically everyone wants at least a few of them. However, it also underscores how these channels are so popular that they can charge the cable and satellite service providers a good amount per subscriber, as many of them are already doing. It remains to be seen if the cable and satellite service providers start passing that cost on to us.
The biggest surprise, for me, was how well Scripps Networks did: Food Network and HGTV fill-out the top seven. There is little doubt that, in a country where everyone was like us, these two networks would survive a la carte pricing, and probably command top-dollar, perhaps as high as $3 per month.
Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, History Channel, Sci Fi, Bravo, TNT, CNN, and (unremarkably) Disney, also did well enough to most likely survive, though they'll likely be charging on the lower end of the scale, from $1-$2 per month. I think we need to include USA and TBS, in that group, as well, and perhaps VH1 and TCM.
ESPN is highly rated on our list, as well. However, keep in mind that ESPN is the most expensive cable channel already. Can they command $4 per subscriber, which they'll need to maintain their current revenue? Doubtful, so their programming will likely suffer a bit.
HBO and Showtime are special cases. Yes, they're lower on the list, but they are already charging per subscriber, and about 3-4 times as much as any of the other channels would be charging. So they'll be there, and do just fine.
PBS, CW and local independent broadcast channels are another special case. The difference is, though, that, by law, these channels can insist they be forced on every subscriber, though if they do so they cannot command a payment from each subscriber. However, with mandatory carriage, they can command enough from advertisers to survive. However, we might see less or cheaper programming -- we actually already are seeing that: CW is turning five hours of network time on Sundays back over to their affiliates, in October.
Now we get to networks that aren't going to be doing too well. These are the channels that would need to charge each of their own subscribers way more than $3 in order to make up for the fact that they're no longer getting the 35c-75c from every subscriber.
Fox News and MSNBC are likely candidates to be subsidized by their parent companies.
MTV Networks will have to decide what to do with their array of channels; perhaps their operations can be optimized so that the cost of each incremental network is very small. As such, the strength of VH1 in our list (above) may indicate enough support for all of MTV's networks, including Palladia, TV Land, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, and MTV, itself. More likely, we'll see some consolidation, there, with a lot of the weaker programming on each channel being discarded, and perhaps three channels replace five.
I have no idea what Fox will do about FX. Our results here do seem to jive with the actual reality: FX, despite substantial investments in very high quality programming, just doesn't command the commensurate attention of audiences. It is possible that Fox will subsidize FX, just to keep the channel slot on satellite and cable systems nationwide, and keep trying new things to find a blockbuster.
In this group also is ABC Family; however worst case, there, is simply combining Disney and ABC Family. Similarly, Sleuth can be combined with Bravo (I think), and ESPN2 with ESPN. Animal Planet can be folded into Discovery, or perhaps subsidized by Discovery.
There are some more channels left in this group: AMC, Hallmark, National Geographic, BBC America, Lifetime, NFL, etc. These are channels, including one of my favorites, that I suppose might survive, but I tend to doubt it. They don't have the underpinnings of a strong congolmerate of channels beneath them, and clearly their appeal is limited. They are, today, ostensibly being subsidized by other channels on the same tier of service that they are placed on by the cable or satellite service provider. AMC and WE could perhaps be combined together, but putting together two weak channels doesn't make a strong channel.
NFL's recent experience is interesting, in this context. They fought very hard for the right to be put on a lower tier of service by major service providers, even going to court to make it happen. If a la carte was imposed, though, that would trump what they recently have won with their efforts: They cannot force customers to choose their channel in an a la carte arrangement. (Of course, NFL might rank higher, in a non-DIS boards environment. However, if you look at the hard numbers, that's not actually the case. The biggest complaints about NFL's recent legal actions was that they were basically imposing themselves on a customer-base that for the most part did not want them, and surely didn't want to pay the relatively high price they were demanding.)
Some other very low-ranked channels would be safe, regardless: CSPAN is already subsidized by cable and satellite providers, so that won't change. E! and Style are both already substantially subsized by Comcast, and so they're probably safe. QVC pays for the privilege of being carried, so it and all other home shopping channels are safe.
Then come the channels that probably have no chance, whatsoever in an a la carte world. If our numbers are to be believed, we can say goodbye to CMT, Ovation, Oxygen, SoapNet, truTV, Logo, History International, Spike, and all the channels that no one in that other thread mentioned.
With a few exceptions: First, many of the channels not mentioned in that other thread are channels of limited interest, but serving the needs of specific racial, cultural or other protected groups. It is believed that such channels will be protected by any law that puts a la carte pricing in place (and would have been protected by law even if a la carte pricing was put into place voluntarily). So all of us would pay a certain amount, which would be divied up among these racial, cultural, etc., interest channels, to ensure that they survive.
Also, the channels that face extinction can give over vast portions of their programming day to home shopping and infomercials. That very effectively replaces their lost revenue from cable and satellite providers. However, cable and satellite providers generally expect payments from home shopping channels, so when a niche interest channel becomes more than half home shopping, it may face being dropped from cable and satellite systems just on that reason alone.
How did your favorite stations do in this survey? How do you feel about the possibility of these changes coming to pass?
