Why not a buffet plan for TV providers?

[rickybobby]

My 2 year plan just expired, so looking for the best deal on providers. I wonder why they cannot/willnot offer buffet plans?
If you could pick which 20 or 30 or whatever channels suit you personally, and pay a set fee for them based on popularity. Example, ESPN might cost $1.25 a month, while Soap Opera Network might be about 10 cents a month. That might help also when negotiations come up between the networks and the cable providers. No more dropping of channels during negotiations like what took place with Viacom. The company will be paid according to what the subscribers want to pay. If they ask $3 a month, and subscribers are not willing to pay, drop the prices til they do return.
All the current plans offered have some of the sought after channels mingled with some that many of us have no use for.

 

[barkley]

a decent number of the channels that get bundled into packages are there because they generate big revenue for the provider-and not via what you as the customer are paying.

a number of the not very large viewership channels not only do not charge the provider to air them-they pay, and it's often based on the number of customer homes their channel is being aired in. so-if the provider bundles those channels into every package w/no opt out choice on the customer's part-that's more revenue for the company.

direct tv caught allot of flack recently when they told customers they dropped INSP channel because they couldn't come to terms over 'fees' to air the channel-and direct tv customers found out it was the fees direct tv was charging the channel to air

 

[sam_gordon]

My 2 year plan just expired, so looking for the best deal on providers. I wonder why they cannot/willnot offer buffet plans?
If you could pick which 20 or 30 or whatever channels suit you personally, and pay a set fee for them based on popularity. Example, ESPN might cost $1.25 a month, while Soap Opera Network might be about 10 cents a month. That might help also when negotiations come up between the networks and the cable providers. No more dropping of channels during negotiations like what took place with Viacom. The company will be paid according to what the subscribers want to pay. If they ask $3 a month, and subscribers are not willing to pay, drop the prices til they do return.
All the current plans offered have some of the sought after channels mingled with some that many of us have no use for.

First, there is absolutely NO way ESPN would only cost a subscriber $1.25/month. You're probably looking at $7-10.

Second, this has been discussed plenty. I'm assuming either the contracts between the sat/cable *** & networks prevent this or the sat/cable *** have "run the numbers" and determined it's not economically feasible.

Here's another side of the issue: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-a-la-carte-pricing-would-cost-billions-of-dollars-20131204,0,4355658.story#axzz2ysKeLCdB

 

[rickybobby]

First, there is absolutely NO way ESPN would only cost a subscriber $1.25/month. You're probably looking at $7-10.

Second, this has been discussed plenty. I'm assuming either the contracts between the sat/cable *** & networks prevent this or the sat/cable *** have "run the numbers" and determined it's not economically feasible.

Here's another side of the issue: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-a-la-carte-pricing-would-cost-billions-of-dollars-20131204,0,4355658.story#axzz2ysKeLCdB

I read the article and was not swayed by it. So Canada is going to give it a shot. That will be interesting to see as a proving ground.

 

[DWGal210]

I would love to see this, too.

I read the article and it's interesting their point of view, but there has to be a better way that keeps people's jobs while still giving the consumer the choice for programming. In general, I don't like the "well this is the way we've always done it" arguments.

I saw an interview (maybe a year ago, now?) with Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. He was talking about watching the Jetsons when he was younger, and how interesting to see that some of the technology in that show is available today. However, interesting to note that we're still watching TV the same as we did when Jetsons was on the air - the industry hasn't changed in years.

 

[sam_gordon]

I read the article and was not swayed by it. So Canada is going to give it a shot. That will be interesting to see as a proving ground.

I don't understand what you should be "swayed by"? Here's another article... http://www.thestreet.com/story/12459069/1/a-la-carte-cable-tv-could-cost-consumers-more.html
My point is there's been ALL kinds of discussion about it. Until enough people "cut the cord", what's the benefit for cable/satcos? Yes, more people are doing that, but not enough to change the business model.

 

[lustergirl]

I personally would love a plan where I can only pay for the channels I watch, which is probably around 8 channels. My lineup is full of crap that I never watch but still pay for. A girl can dream

 

[sam_gordon]

I would love to see this, too.

I read the article and it's interesting their point of view, but there has to be a better way that keeps people's jobs while still giving the consumer the choice for programming. In general, I don't like the "well this is the way we've always done it" arguments.

I saw an interview (maybe a year ago, now?) with Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. He was talking about watching the Jetsons when he was younger, and how interesting to see that some of the technology in that show is available today. However, interesting to note that we're still watching TV the same as we did when Jetsons was on the air - the industry hasn't changed in years.

Color?
HD?
Digital Subchannels?
Streaming?
Satellite?
3D?
4K (upcoming)?

I'm not sure what kind of changes you're hoping for, but the industry HAS changed.

 

[DWGal210]

Color?
HD?
Digital Subchannels?
Streaming?
Satellite?
3D?
4K (upcoming)?

I'm not sure what kind of changes you're hoping for, but the industry HAS changed.

Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific.

OF COURSE there have been things added in the features category, like color and HD. What I am talking about is their core business model of how they create revenue and structure the networks; that has not seemed to change.

 

[EMAW_KSU]

I personally would love a plan where I can only pay for the channels I watch, which is probably around 8 channels. My lineup is full of crap that I never watch but still pay for. A girl can dream

That is the type of subscriber an a la carte system would benefit.

 

[Robinrs]

My 2 year plan just expired, so looking for the best deal on providers. I wonder why they cannot/willnot offer buffet plans?
If you could pick which 20 or 30 or whatever channels suit you personally, and pay a set fee for them based on popularity. Example, ESPN might cost $1.25 a month, while Soap Opera Network might be about 10 cents a month. That might help also when negotiations come up between the networks and the cable providers. No more dropping of channels during negotiations like what took place with Viacom. The company will be paid according to what the subscribers want to pay. If they ask $3 a month, and subscribers are not willing to pay, drop the prices til they do return.
All the current plans offered have some of the sought after channels mingled with some that many of us have no use for.

a la cart or as you call it "buffet" will be a boon for the viewer but will kill off fledging or less watched stations. Getting your station on a channel that is bundled with better known stations helps the smaller ones, even though it doesn't seem fair to the viewers.

The LA Times published this article last year that says it better than I can:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/18/business/la-fi-lazarus-20130719

If you had asked me last week how I felt about people having to pay for dozens of TV channels they never watch, I'd have told you it's an unfair and archaic practice that should be done away with.

I'd have said pretty much the same earlier this week after a report was issued by the New York investment bank Needham & Co. warning that a switch to so-called a la carte programming would cost the pay-TV industry about $70 billion and leave viewers with fewer than 20 channels.And after a lively, at times heated, conversation with the author of that report, I still think it's wrong to make consumers pay for products they don't want.

But the other side is making some interesting points.

"If you unbundle, it would be bad for the TV industry but also bad for consumers," said Laura Martin, senior media analyst at Needham and author of the report, "The Future of TV."

"The question is whether value to consumers is measured by the quantity of choice available or the price," she told me. "I think choice is better."

By Martin's reckoning, you can't have both. Either you go all-in with the idea that a wide range of programming choices defines the best possible TV experience or you believe every channel should sink or swim on its own merit.

If the latter, she argues, you'll end up with just the major networks, Fox News, ESPN and a handful of other channels with large enough audiences to attract advertisers and thus help underwrite programming costs.

"Fifty percent of television is paid for by advertising," Martin said. "No channel generates a single dollar in advertising revenue until it reaches at least 25 million homes."

In other words, if the Golf Channel couldn't piggyback on more-popular channels, it wouldn't be able to sell any commercials and thus wouldn't make enough money to survive in an a la carte world unless subscribers were charged the equivalent of membership at Pebble Beach.

The FCC regulates cable companies on what they charge for their "basic tier', but not the rates for their secondary and pay per view tiers. Determining what tier you'll be bundled in is the difference between a station that will be profitable or die in a few years. No station can just show up on a line up and expect to be watched unless they can negotiate the tier they are on in the cable line up. This is where the cable companies work their magic. If your favorite channel is not in the basic tier they make sure you buy that second or upgrade package.

Does it suck? You bet it does. I'd LOVE to see it changed but it will take a lot of deregulation and negotiation with people who don't want to lose their bottom line to the buffet.

 

[TifffanyD]

You mean you want an a la carte plan, right?

At buffets you pay one price and have access to all items whether you eat them or not. That's how TV is today.

 

[DWGal210]

a la cart or as you call it "buffet" will be a boon for the viewer but will kill off fledging or less watched stations. Getting your station on a channel that is bundled with better known stations helps the smaller ones, even though it doesn't seem fair to the viewers.

(bolding is mine)

Not trying to be harsh (and this is not against you, Robin, just my response to the point of view), but so what?? It's the network's responsibility to create content that the viewers want to watch - if no one is watching that obscure channel (because of bad programming, bad marketing, etc), that's not my problem.

 

[cabanafrau]

Wonder how much of a hit Disney stock would take if people could opt out of ESPN? From what I understand that is an albatross around the neck of a lot of cable price structures -- and quite the profit generator for Disney.

 

[teacherforhi]

(bolding is mine)

Not trying to be harsh (and this is not against you, Robin, just my response to the point of view), but so what?? It's the network's responsibility to create content that the viewers want to watch - if no one is watching that obscure channel (because of bad programming, bad marketing, etc), that's not my problem.

It's not always bad programming or bad marketing. Think about the Syfy Channel. The programming, for the most part, appeals to a certain group of people. Without the bundling, there simply wouldn't be enough viewers interested to keep it on the air. There a lot of channels like that. It's easy to say so what, but we would eventually drop back to just a few channels, just like it was before cable. You think television is bad now, what do you think it will be like when the major networks have no competition again?

 

[rickybobby]

I don't understand what you should be "swayed by"? Here's another article... http://www.thestreet.com/story/12459069/1/a-la-carte-cable-tv-could-cost-consumers-more.html
My point is there's been ALL kinds of discussion about it. Until enough people "cut the cord", what's the benefit for cable/satcos? Yes, more people are doing that, but not enough to change the business model.

Okay, instead of saying I am not swayed, what I will say is these articles do not make me any more enlightened. If I don't agree with something, and someone provides me with a good explanation as to why I should not disagree, I am inclined to be swayed to the other side of the argument. Nothing that has been relayed in these articles made me think that ala carte might not work. These were simply hypothetical opinions, and not fact based.
Give me something to change my opinion, and I will gladly change it, and will thank you for providing the insight that I was not grasping originally.
There probably is a valid argument against it since it has never been attempted here, but I just have not heard that argument yet.

 

[Robinrs]

(bolding is mine)

Not trying to be harsh (and this is not against you, Robin, just my response to the point of view), but so what?? It's the network's responsibility to create content that the viewers want to watch - if no one is watching that obscure channel (because of bad programming, bad marketing, etc), that's not my problem.

I agree with you! But it's the reason they don't want it to change.

A few years ago I worked for a fledgling channel that offered programming for children and families. The idea was awesome, the people behind it were great but getting it on the air was a challenge. We made it to the second tier on Comcast which bundled us with some good sports programs but we didn't get the kind of viewership that we could have if we were on the basic tier or the next one up from basic. The sales people have to go to advertisers with these statistics, promising that there will be viewers because they will be with the other channels. Otherwise you don't make a dime in revenue.

Needless to say it didn't survive, lots of them DON'T, but if they were offered a la carte it might have reached it's demographic, not just the people willing to pay more for that tier.

Like I said, it sucks.

 

[Robinrs]

Okay, instead of saying I am not swayed, what I will say is these articles do not make me any more enlightened. If I don't agree with something, and someone provides me with a good explanation as to why I should not disagree, I am inclined to be swayed to the other side of the argument. Nothing that has been relayed in these articles made me think that ala carte might not work. These were simply hypothetical opinions, and not fact based.
Give me something to change my opinion, and I will gladly change it, and will thank you for providing the insight that I was not grasping originally.
There probably is a valid argument against it since it has never been attempted here, but I just have not heard that argument yet.

Doesn't matter how we feel, how we're swayed or how it bugs us, the cable industry is a business that works on the bottom line, MONEY. No matter how we feel they will always make their business decisions on how it affects the all might dollar, not on how it affects consumers.

 

[rickybobby]

Thinking aboug going with just networks and Hulu Plus. That would be a lot cheaper than the bundles.

 

[rickybobby]

As for the channels I give up, that's what neighbors are for.

The name of this thread does suck. It should be ala carte instead of buffet. My bad.