Why not a buffet plan for TV providers?

[sam_gordon]

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.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I will point out there is a theory that if a la carte was available, it would cost as much as or more than what you pay now AND you'd get less channels.

 

[DWGal210]

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?

I understand what you're saying. However, I would also argue that the SyFy channel has a loyal following of viewers, probably a decent number of viewers. They might have had a hard time starting out in an a la carte pay situation, but now they have loyal viewers who I would imagine would pay for their channel if it came to that.

I also do think the major networks will have competition - look at some of the top TV shows now, they are not on CBS, NBC or ABC. They're on TNT, TBS, A&E, AMC, FX, etc. The formerly "obscure" or smaller networks are seeing huge numbers. I would think those viewers would follow them into an a la carte situation.

I can see that in a "pay for what you watch" scenario, that instead of having 300+ channels we'd have more like 100-125, max.

 

[sam_gordon]

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.

I dare say 97%+ of businesses/industry base their decisions on money. Cable/sat doesn't have a monopoly on that business model.

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.

Edit your OP. You should be able to change the title.

 

[cluvsdisney]

I understand what you're saying. However, I would also argue that the SyFy channel has a loyal following of viewers, probably a decent number of viewers. They might have had a hard time starting out in an a la carte pay situation, but now they have loyal viewers who I would imagine would pay for their channel if it came to that.

I also do think the major networks will have competition - look at some of the top TV shows now, they are not on CBS, NBC or ABC. They're on TNT, TBS, A&E, AMC, FX, etc. The formerly "obscure" or smaller networks are seeing huge numbers. I would think those viewers would follow them into an a la carte situation.

I can see that in a "pay for what you watch" scenario, that instead of having 300+ channels we'd have more like 100-125, max.

When these networks started out, I don't think enough people would add them to their cable line up if it was a la carte. That would have kept them from growing and acquiring the programs they have on the air today. Most customers would choose the 10, 15, 20 channels they watch regularly and shows like Mad Men & Breaking Bad would end up on pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime.

 

[Albort]

i know Intel tried to do this, but i forget why it failed. Tried to look it up, looks like Verizon just purchased it.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by DWGal210
I understand what you're saying. However, I would also argue that the SyFy channel has a loyal following of viewers, probably a decent number of viewers. They might have had a hard time starting out in an a la carte pay situation, but now they have loyal viewers who I would imagine would pay for their channel if it came to that.

Just think. With an a-la-carte plan, we wouldn't get such quality SyFy channel programing as.
Sharknado.
Jersey shore shark attack
sharktopus.
Piranhaconda
Anonymous Rex
Dinocroc
Dinocroc vs Supergator
Megapython vs Gateroid.
Dinoshark
Frankenfish
Hammerhead Shark Frenzy
Bats, human harvest.
Mega Piranha
Chucacabra Dark Seas.
Man Thing
Swamp Shark
The Bone eater
Carny
Ice Spiders
Monster Ark. Apparently, the bible forgot to mention that Noah accidently stuffed his first Ark with evil and the one we know of was his second one.
Kaw. rip off of the birds
Mongolian Death Worm.
Mansquito Rip off of the fly.
Homewrecker. A man gives a female persona to his super computer. She gets jealous when his wife comes back.

 

[pryncess527]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I will point out there is a theory that if a la carte was available, it would cost as much as or more than what you pay now AND you'd get less channels.

ditto. a la carte might work for some consumers, but based on the data I've looked at for the vast majority it would drive prices up and limit content. Apple pretty much offers a la carte programming by allowing you to purchase seasons or episodes of select shows on iTunes -- if my household did that, we'd drastically increase what we pay for tv, so I really have no reason to believe an a la carte model would save money for most consumers.

 

[DWGal210]

Just think. With an a-la-carte plan, we wouldn't get such quality SyFy channel programing as.
Sharknado.
Jersey shore shark attack
sharktopus.
Piranhaconda
Anonymous Rex
Dinocroc
Dinocroc vs Supergator
Megapython vs Gateroid.
Dinoshark
Frankenfish
Hammerhead Shark Frenzy
Bats, human harvest.
Mega Piranha
Chucacabra Dark Seas.
Man Thing
Swamp Shark
The Bone eater
Carny
Ice Spiders
Monster Ark. Apparently, the bible forgot to mention that Noah accidently stuffed his first Ark with evil and the one we know of was his second one.
Kaw. rip off of the birds
Mongolian Death Worm.
Mansquito Rip off of the fly.
Homewrecker. A man gives a female persona to his super computer. She gets jealous when his wife comes back.

 

[tvguy]

Cable/Satellite TV industry is almost identical to Cell Phone industry. Keep adding stuff, even if people don't want it, as you raise the price. "Yes, we raised your price $5 a month, but you now have the "Zombie Ronald McDonald Channel"............the "This Old House Bloopers Channel"........and "1979 Arena Football Rerun Channel".

With my cell phone I used to pay $19.95 a month and 25 cents a minute for the 20 minutes I used a month. Now I pay $69.95 a month for unlimited minutes and texts when I still only use 20 minutes of talk time.

 

[DawnM]

I have network TV (free/antenna), Netflix ($8), and Hulu+ $8). I was going to dump Hulu again but I am hooked on a couple of shows. When I get caught up, I will dump Hulu+.

If I could get just a few channels that I wanted, l might consider it, but I bet there would be a base price, each channel at least $5/mo., etc....they won't give it away, that is for sure.

Dawn

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

 

[EMAW_KSU]

I will point out there is a theory that if a la carte was available, it would cost as much as or more than what you pay now AND you'd get less channels.

Especially for families that have members that watch different things.

 

[Andtototoo]

I have been grumbling about the cost of cable for years. In our area, basic cable costs $90/month and includes 60+ channels. There is no option for anything less in cost or fewer channels. We only watch about 8 of those channels. We NEVER watch the sports channels. Our area was just "upgraded" to all digital and we had to get the cable boxes which are free for one year, then we'll be charged for them. At that point, our cable will be > $100/month, at which point we will be cutting it from our budget. It's simply not worth it at that price.

I will also note that when I went to the cable office to pick up my boxes, everyone in front of me in the long line was returning their boxes and cancelling their service. The process of setting up the digital input took me over 4.5 hours (and I am pretty tech savvy), so I can imagine that for other people with less tech knowledge, it was a no go (they charge you $30 to come out and set it up). And I'll note that the problem was not in my set up, but in their signal to my boxes. Even the tech I spoke with admitted that a less stubborn person would have given up and just cancelled. So I wonder what % of people are cancelling now and may cancel in a year when the price goes up again.

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?

Maybe people would get off their butts and start being active again.

 

[usd2bmd]

We are currently going through the search now. We only have a somewhat basic satellite service, no DVR, no HD channels, no HBO or anything like that. But I still feel like I pay too much. I don't want to switch to another Satellite provider and have to change the dish on the roof. I would love to ditch it all and get HULU or ROKU, but we can't get sports without cable and/or satellite.

 

[Missy1961]

OK, you're all going to be annoyed with me, but I love the buffet of cable TV. Yeah, it costs a heck of a lot of money, but I love having the ability to watch lots of different types of programming. I love sports. I love movies. I love sitcoms and dramas and every kind of cooking show. I love investigative shows. My 89 year old dad loves the old movies he can watch. Any time I've had a problem, I call them, they either fix it remotely or they came and fix it. And when we went to digital cable a few years ago, I installed the boxes myself and it took about 15 minutes total. Just added DVR the other day and loving the heck out of that too.

 

[bcla]

I'm just ticked off that I don't have ESPNU in my cable package. I've got Comcast's "Sports Package" and that doesn't include ESPNU. I also don't have TruTV, which has some NCAA Tournament games I wanted to watch.

I just happened to be working in the Sacramento area during one NCAA Tournament, and the cable at the place (also Comcast) had TruTV in the basic package.

That's the thing that drives me crazy to no end. The mix of what's a basic or higher tier package varies a ton depending on where you live. And in my area, that DirecTV doesn't carry Pac-12 Network is a big deal.

 

[phamton]

In the early to mid-90's, we had a large satellite dish. This was the kind that had a motor and the dish moved to point at different satellites like G-4,F-1, etc. Most of the stations were free for network TV as we received raw feeds out of NY or Denver and Los Angeles etc. We couldn't get local networks so no local news.

At that time, you could order stations and pay a la carte. I remember paying for Lifetime, TLC, HBO, and Discovery. The rest of my stations were free.

By the mid 90's the local stations began to lobby that they wanted those of us with satellite dishes to watch the local ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX so they could sell more ads/commercials. So we lost the free network feeds from NY, CO, and CA. The only way we could keep them is if we were too far away to get the local stations with an antennae. Most of the stations I paid for ran about $1.50 or so a month. I know we added a few more from time to time like TBS and CNN. We got CNN headline news for free in a raw feed.

 

[ScottOKW2K]

Just think. With an a-la-carte plan, we wouldn't get such quality SyFy channel programing as.
Sharknado.
Jersey shore shark attack
sharktopus.
Piranhaconda
Anonymous Rex
Dinocroc
Dinocroc vs Supergator
Megapython vs Gateroid.
Dinoshark
Frankenfish
Hammerhead Shark Frenzy
Bats, human harvest.
Mega Piranha
Chucacabra Dark Seas.
Man Thing
Swamp Shark
The Bone eater
Carny
Ice Spiders
Monster Ark. Apparently, the bible forgot to mention that Noah accidently stuffed his first Ark with evil and the one we know of was his second one.
Kaw. rip off of the birds
Mongolian Death Worm.
Mansquito Rip off of the fly.
Homewrecker. A man gives a female persona to his super computer. She gets jealous when his wife comes back.

I know what you mean - it's kinda sad, isn't it . Thus from the same network that has given us Babylon 5, Farscape and Eureka.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by hasn't changed.

These have all become mainstream since the Jetsons (though some existed even then)

HDTV
VCR
DVD
Cable
Satellite--the small kind
TiVO
Televisions are very thin thanks to not needing a tube like when we watched the Jetsons--so instead of being a piece of furniture, they mount to a wall
Home Theaters
Smart Phones
iPads
Computers (used to watch television)
And the creation of Hulu

Television has changed quite a bit since the Jetsons. But in the end, you are watching a picture that moves, so the fundamentals of it will be quite unchanged.

That said -- when the Jetsons aired--there were 3 channels and if the president was in your night was shot. (Hat tip to Jeff Foxworthy.)

 

[Colleen27]

(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.

You're assuming it is because the network is somehow "bad" when in reality it would most heavily impact those with a niche market. Disney Jr, which only appeals to a narrow age demographic. Sci-Fi or Ovation, which appeal to a particular set of cultural interests. CMT, which obviously only matters to country music fans. What a pay-per-channel system would do is limit the offerings to only those with the most broad-based appeal. And because the funding/advertising success would have to come before program development it would also hurt channels that started niche but became popular - for example, AMC probably wouldn't have survived long enough as a niche channel showing old movies to grow into the network that put out Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, and Mad Men.

Also, it would make it much harder to discover new shows. I never really watched AMC until Walking Dead... so if we were paying per channel I wouldn't have had it to get hooked on that new show. Same with FX and Justified, BBC-America and Broadchurch, etc.

 

[DWGal210]

I'm not sure what you mean by hasn't changed.

These have all become mainstream since the Jetsons (though some existed even then)

HDTV
VCR
DVD
Cable
Satellite--the small kind
TiVO
Televisions are very thin thanks to not needing a tube like when we watched the Jetsons--so instead of being a piece of furniture, they mount to a wall
Home Theaters
Smart Phones
iPads
Computers (used to watch television)
And the creation of Hulu

Television has changed quite a bit since the Jetsons. But in the end, you are watching a picture that moves, so the fundamentals of it will be quite unchanged.

That said -- when the Jetsons aired--there were 3 channels and if the president was in your night was shot. (Hat tip to Jeff Foxworthy.)

I clarified in an earlier post - what I should have said, and what I meant - is that the TV business model has not changed, or has changed very little. Of course technology has changed - but it seems the way the TV industry structures their business has changed very little in the past 50+ years.