Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
Author Message
sundodger Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Bow Down!
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
Perhaps it is time the consumers force the FCC to allow cable to charge ala carte. I know that my house would pay for the following cable line-up (assuming all local stations are still carried)

ESPN/ESPN2
NBCSN
Root Sports
Food Network/Cooking
Travel
Discovery
Science
History/H2
USA
BBC America
Hallmark/Hallmark Movie
Disney
Nic
Nic Jr/DToons

In fact we pay for that now and just get an Fton of crap we don't watch.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 01:09 PM by sundodger.)
04-09-2013 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,824
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 165
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #42
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 01:06 PM)sundodger Wrote:  Perhaps it is time the consumers force the FCC to allow cable to charge ala carte. I know that my house would pay for the following cable line-up (assuming all local stations are still carried)

ESPN/ESPN2
NBCSN
Root Sports
Food Network/Cooking
Travel
Discovery
Science
History/H2
USA
BBC America
Hallmark/Hallmark Movie
Disney
Nic
Nic Jr/DToons

In fact we pay for that now and just get an Fton of crap we don't watch.
I think I heard on the news the other day that a la carte is in the works. Cable and satellite providers could really start to ascertain the value of a network standing on it's own and pay accordingly. If it sucks it dies. If it's great providers will pay. Prices would totally be decided by subscriptions by customers.
04-09-2013 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,672
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 383
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #43
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
cord cutters and high cost sports channels are forcing providers to evaluate the a la carte option. Reality is unless you are a sports fan, there is absolutely no need for cable/satellite b/c everything else can be found on Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.
04-09-2013 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,077
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 03:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  cord cutters and high cost sports channels are forcing providers to evaluate the a la carte option. Reality is unless you are a sports fan, there is absolutely no need for cable/satellite b/c everything else can be found on Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.

Which is why cable and satellite squeezed ESPN's jewels to pull ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU content off ESPN3.com.

Made it easy to cord cut. I've got the most bare-bones TV package ATT offers and now I get WatchESPN.
04-09-2013 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,022
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 01:06 PM)sundodger Wrote:  Perhaps it is time the consumers force the FCC to allow cable to charge ala carte. I know that my house would pay for the following cable line-up (assuming all local stations are still carried)

ESPN/ESPN2
NBCSN
Root Sports
Food Network/Cooking
Travel
Discovery
Science
History/H2
USA
BBC America
Hallmark/Hallmark Movie
Disney
Nic
Nic Jr/DToons

In fact we pay for that now and just get an Fton of crap we don't watch.
Yet true a la carte prices would be substantially higher than the per subscriber carriage to be on a tier, because of the fact that the tier is trying to hit a willingness to pay the upgrade price for whichever combination of channels in the tier it is that the customer is interested in.

I've got a couple of streaming subscriptions ~ the cheapest is $4/month, at a special Cyber Monday deal, regularly $5/month if paid annually. At $5 per streaming subscription to most of those and $20 to ESPN/ESPN2, that'd be $85.

And without a tiered system, that's the point where a lot of people start winnowing that list down, and then the reduction in price comes with a reduction in access to channels that you do watch, but are not as intensely interested in.
04-09-2013 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,672
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 383
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #46
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 05:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 01:06 PM)sundodger Wrote:  Perhaps it is time the consumers force the FCC to allow cable to charge ala carte. I know that my house would pay for the following cable line-up (assuming all local stations are still carried)

ESPN/ESPN2
NBCSN
Root Sports
Food Network/Cooking
Travel
Discovery
Science
History/H2
USA
BBC America
Hallmark/Hallmark Movie
Disney
Nic
Nic Jr/DToons

In fact we pay for that now and just get an Fton of crap we don't watch.
Yet true a la carte prices would be substantially higher than the per subscriber carriage to be on a tier, because of the fact that the tier is trying to hit a willingness to pay the upgrade price for whichever combination of channels in the tier it is that the customer is interested in.

I've got a couple of streaming subscriptions ~ the cheapest is $4/month, at a special Cyber Monday deal, regularly $5/month if paid annually. At $5 per streaming subscription to most of those and $20 to ESPN/ESPN2, that'd be $85.

And without a tiered system, that's the point where a lot of people start winnowing that list down, and then the reduction in price comes with a reduction in access to channels that you do watch, but are not as intensely interested in.

While it is almost always cheaper to buy in bulk there is a reason no everyone does; you end up wasting money If you don't use the excess. Same principle applies for a 100 channel cable package as it does a 2 liter coke; people don't want to pay for the excess. Why would anyone pay $1.50 for a 20oz coke when they can get a 2L for $.50 more? Yet people do, myself included. I would rather save the $.50 and get exactly what I want then pay the extra $.50 and have leftovers I don't use. Cable packages are becoming the same way. People would rather pay $20 for 10 channels of which they watch all Ten channels vs. Paying $50 for 100 channels of which they only watch 10
04-09-2013 08:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,672
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 383
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #47
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 03:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 03:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  cord cutters and high cost sports channels are forcing providers to evaluate the a la carte option. Reality is unless you are a sports fan, there is absolutely no need for cable/satellite b/c everything else can be found on Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.

Which is why cable and satellite squeezed ESPN's jewels to pull ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU content off ESPN3.com.

Made it easy to cord cut. I've got the most bare-bones TV package ATT offers and now I get WatchESPN.

Agreed. Phase 1 of my cord cutting involved me getting att DSL over time warner cable modem because of ESPN 3. Now that is no longer an issue because people were catching on fast. BTW I also agree strongly with your ideas that smaller conferences should focus on regional TV deals and maximize their audience via pursuing the fools gild of national broadcasts trying to complete with the bigger conferences
04-09-2013 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sundodger Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Bow Down!
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 05:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 01:06 PM)sundodger Wrote:  Perhaps it is time the consumers force the FCC to allow cable to charge ala carte. I know that my house would pay for the following cable line-up (assuming all local stations are still carried)

ESPN/ESPN2
NBCSN
Root Sports
Food Network/Cooking
Travel
Discovery
Science
History/H2
USA
BBC America
Hallmark/Hallmark Movie
Disney
Nic
Nic Jr/DToons

In fact we pay for that now and just get an Fton of crap we don't watch.
Yet true a la carte prices would be substantially higher than the per subscriber carriage to be on a tier, because of the fact that the tier is trying to hit a willingness to pay the upgrade price for whichever combination of channels in the tier it is that the customer is interested in.

I've got a couple of streaming subscriptions ~ the cheapest is $4/month, at a special Cyber Monday deal, regularly $5/month if paid annually. At $5 per streaming subscription to most of those and $20 to ESPN/ESPN2, that'd be $85.

And without a tiered system, that's the point where a lot of people start winnowing that list down, and then the reduction in price comes with a reduction in access to channels that you do watch, but are not as intensely interested in.

But if the paradigm were to shift to where ala carte became the normal subscripition mode, then the individual or even packaged grouping should become cheaper. If the content owners priced them to high they would not get the number of subscriptions that they need. They may also be willing to bundle channels say for instance the Food Network and related, I may pay $5 for food network, but maybe $12 total for Food Network, Cooking, and Travel. And yes I would rather pay $75-80 for the 20-25 channels I watch than $135 for 200 I don't.
04-09-2013 11:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,077
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 11:35 PM)sundodger Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 05:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 01:06 PM)sundodger Wrote:  Perhaps it is time the consumers force the FCC to allow cable to charge ala carte. I know that my house would pay for the following cable line-up (assuming all local stations are still carried)

ESPN/ESPN2
NBCSN
Root Sports
Food Network/Cooking
Travel
Discovery
Science
History/H2
USA
BBC America
Hallmark/Hallmark Movie
Disney
Nic
Nic Jr/DToons

In fact we pay for that now and just get an Fton of crap we don't watch.
Yet true a la carte prices would be substantially higher than the per subscriber carriage to be on a tier, because of the fact that the tier is trying to hit a willingness to pay the upgrade price for whichever combination of channels in the tier it is that the customer is interested in.

I've got a couple of streaming subscriptions ~ the cheapest is $4/month, at a special Cyber Monday deal, regularly $5/month if paid annually. At $5 per streaming subscription to most of those and $20 to ESPN/ESPN2, that'd be $85.

And without a tiered system, that's the point where a lot of people start winnowing that list down, and then the reduction in price comes with a reduction in access to channels that you do watch, but are not as intensely interested in.

But if the paradigm were to shift to where ala carte became the normal subscripition mode, then the individual or even packaged grouping should become cheaper. If the content owners priced them to high they would not get the number of subscriptions that they need. They may also be willing to bundle channels say for instance the Food Network and related, I may pay $5 for food network, but maybe $12 total for Food Network, Cooking, and Travel. And yes I would rather pay $75-80 for the 20-25 channels I watch than $135 for 200 I don't.

Except I bet you end up pay $135 and get 25-40 channels.

And even if ala carte comes in I'm sure there will be "specials", buy Fox Sports 1 for $15 and get Fox Sports 2, your local Fox Regional, FX, and and Fox Movies for $5.
04-10-2013 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,022
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes
(04-09-2013 08:52 PM)solohawks Wrote:  While it is almost always cheaper to buy in bulk there is a reason no everyone does; you end up wasting money If you don't use the excess. Same principle applies for a 100 channel cable package as it does a 2 liter coke; people don't want to pay for the excess.
I'm just pointing out that you aren't likely to be paying for any excess if there are six to ten channels that you regularly watch on a thirty to fifty channel tier. Its the people who only watch one or two channels on a tier, or who only have basic cable because they are not allowed to leapfrog to a specific premium tier without it, who are actually having extra willingness to pay for those specific channels being tapped by the cable companies.

(04-09-2013 11:35 PM)sundodger Wrote:  But if the paradigm were to shift to where ala carte became the normal subscripition mode, then the individual or even packaged grouping should become cheaper.
Cheaper than what? For the ones that remain subscription channels, it wouldn't be cheaper than their share of the price is your allocate the incremental cost of of the tier to each channel based on their carriage rate, it would be more expensive.

Quote: If the content owners priced them to high they would not get the number of subscriptions that they need.
But they are already priced to where the price of a bundle of 45 is inside a larger number of people's willingness to pay for a few "must have" channels, or five to ten favorites plus some that are watched less frequently for some specific show or specific event. If unbundled as a la carte, and losing the "free ride" carriage from those who are picking up the tier for some other bundle, they have to harvest their revenue from those who have a strong enough preference for their channel.

Quote: They may also be willing to bundle channels say for instance the Food Network and related, I may pay $5 for food network, but maybe $12 total for Food Network, Cooking, and Travel. And yes I would rather pay $75-80 for the 20-25 channels I watch than $135 for 200 I don't.
If everyone willing to pay $135 to be able to watch 20-25 channels were to keep watching those channels, there's no particular reason to expect that their cost would be much different to $135.

What does happen with a la carte pricing versus buffet pricing is that the customer is more selective, and ends up selecting fewer channels than entered into their decision whether or not to pay for the tier.

Say there are three packages ~ food, reality tv, and documentaries (eg Discovery, Nat Geo, Science, History), all bundled together. Person A loves package one, marginally likes package two, doesn't ever watch package three. Person B loves package two, marginally likes package three, doesn't watch package one. Person C loves package three, marginally likes package one, doesn't watch package two. The trick of tiered buffet pricing is that there may be a price that is a bit above the base value of 1 for A, 2 for B and 3 for C, because of the marginal extra value of 2 to A, 3 to B, and 1 to C. So rather than the three packages each getting what they would get from A, B, and C individually, they also share some of that marginal extra value.

Under a la carte pricing, the price that taps the willingness a A to pay for package one may well be more than twice the price that taps the willingness of both A and B to pay for package one, so the a la carte price is the one that gets A-type viewers to pay for 1, B-types to pay for 2, and C-types to pay for 3.

(And of course, any given channel is the same thing at a finer scale: different people watch different show on MTV or Food or History, so the shows driving interest will be different for different viewers.)

The business model of Netflix is to have one tier of ad-free service and buffet pricing for whatever it is among Netflix content that you are willing to pay the monthly price for. Although they had been expected to post a loss for 2012Q4, following a loss and two small profits since the collapse of their profitability at the beginning of 2012, they eked out a small profit, with an uptick in subscriptions from customers who got a new tablet and/or smartphone in the Christmas season.

The business model of two other direct subscription streaming sites announced to have hit profitability ~ Hulu and Crunchyroll ~ is to have a free, ad-supported tier of content and services and a premium tier of content and services that you pay for ~ also under buffet pricing.

The prices for those three more or less commercially viable direct streaming video services are quite similar to the prices of a la carte offerings already on cable, with a lot of them in the $5-$10 range, so there's no particular reason to expect a shift to all a la carte, either on cable or with cable cutting, to see a channel cost outside of the $5-$10 range for ordinary content. Obviously an al a carte offering of ESPN or HBO would have to be higher due to the higher cost of their content, though there the uncertainty is whether the market would be able to support a price point that would be adequate to cover their rights/productions costs.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 09:43 AM by BruceMcF.)
04-10-2013 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.