Quality V Quantity

[TDK1044]

I recently watched a DirecTV commercial where the voice over was pointing out that although the DISH Network basic package looks good at face value, in reality it contains a number of channels that nobody is interested in, and it does not contain as many core channels of interest as the DirecTV basic package offers.

It occurred to me that the satellite and cable industry may be making the same mistake that the US auto industry made, which put them into an uncontrolable spiral of massive debt, resulting in a Government bail out.

In order to compete with each other at every level, the auto industry made the mistake of producing too many makes and models of vehicles of varying quality, and the demand simply wasn't there for them. Now they are all stream lining and offering fewer models of higher quality, while selling off the non profitable makes.

I think the satellite industry should learn from this lesson. Constantly we hear the cry for more and more HD channels. In my view, what we really need is a fewer number of total channels but with all of them offered in HD.

I realize that one man's treasure is another man's trash, but I believe that if one company had the courage to drop some channels that are watched by a truly tiny percentage of people, and therefore reduce the total number of channels offered, but compensate for that loss by making all of the offered channels as HD channels, in the end that company would see higher profits.

I read some research that suggested that most Americans actually watch fewer than 50 channels per year, excluding PPV channels....so why are the providers offering packages of 300 plus channels?

I think somebody at the corporate level needs to stop and think about the equation of quantity versus quality. It's certainly possible to cater to the majority and minority interests without having to offer 300 plus channels in order to do it. :)

[Skyboss]

I'll agree, there are quite a few crap channels out there wasting bandwidth. The question is how to deal with it. Some will say "let capitalism take care of it", but how can you when its all packaged together?

I bet there's about 50 channels worth actually watching. Maybe. On a good day. The rest are a waste of space.

[matt]

As crazy as it sounds, I bet you couldn't find a channel that a large group of people don't watch.

When I looked at the list, I thought there was no way I would be watching that hippie go green channel, but there are a couple shows I enjoy on it.

As for the shopping channels, you know they make money or they wouldn't have been around for forever.

It would be interesting to see if there were some channels that nobody watched

[evan_s]

I see a couple problems with trying to do this.

#1. Channel bundles. Currently a large percentage of the channels available are controlled by relatively small number of content providers and they like bundles of channels. If you want ESPN you have to carry ESPN 2, EPSN NEWS, ESPN knitting channel, etc to get a good deal.


#2. The loss of existing customer base. If you dropped a bunch of SD channels that customer were already used to having you could easily loose a large number of customer. No customer likes having something taken away.

#3. Channel line-ups are inherently different than cars. In the end people only buy a new car every couple years (generally) and most people only have one car they drive. TV channels are much different. Most people watch multiple different channels regularly. What channels those are will vary greatly and will change as people tastes change and shows come and go.

#4. DirecTV is doing a pretty good job of providing us both quality and quantity. Once D12 is active, Soon(TM), they will have the capacity to have most of the HD channels currently available.

[MartyS]

In the restaurant business we used to have what we called Rule of 2's. Basically, it means that when a customer visits a particular restaurant, he or she usually (more than 80% of the time) will order one of 2 things on the menu. It happens nearly every time that person walks into that restauant.

However, the 2 choices that the customer makes is different for each person visiting that restaurant.

Now, if you think about it logically, when you visit a restaurant you probably do the same thing... you go to restaurant "A" because you like their "whatever" and you always tend to order it.

I think you'll find a comparable rule (not 2 but a finite number) of channels that folks regularly watch. But, it's a different set of channels for each person.

[tonyd79]

Now, if you think about it logically, when you visit a restaurant you probably do the same thing... you go to restaurant "A" because you like their "whatever" and you always tend to order it.


And you wonder why they are taking up kitchen and menu space for those items you never order. Who wants *that* crap?:hurah:grin:

[hilmar2k]

In the restaurant business we used to have what we called Rule of 2's. Basically, it means that when a customer visits a particular restaurant, he or she usually (more than 80% of the time) will order one of 2 things on the menu. It happens nearly every time that person walks into that restauant.

However, the 2 choices that the customer makes is different for each person visiting that restaurant.

Now, if you think about it logically, when you visit a restaurant you probably do the same thing... you go to restaurant "A" because you like their "whatever" and you always tend to order it.

I think you'll find a comparable rule (not 2 but a finite number) of channels that folks regularly watch. But, it's a different set of channels for each person.


Within my own house there are three sets of channels.

[MartyS]

And you wonder why they are taking up kitchen and menu space for those items you never order. Who wants *that* crap?:hurah:grin:
Yeah, but when you take that one item off of the menu, all hell breaks loose from the 12 regulars that regularly ordered it. It can make you :grin:

[TDK1044]

I certainly agree that it's a difficult balancing act for any provider, but they do need to keep their focus on pleasing the majority of their customers....especially customers who are paying monthly premium channel fees to them.

I'll give you an example. I'm in the small minority of viewers who subscribe to the Fox Soccer Channel and Fox Soccer Plus.

Both of those channels are minority viewing channels, but interest in soccer is certainly growing in the US. This season, FSC achieved its highest ever rating of 329,000....which is about 60,000 up on the previous highest rating.

In relative terms, these are small numbers, but they demonstrate a growing interest in the channel.

I pay $12.99 for FSC and $14.99 for FSC Plus each month. FSC is offered by FOX in HD. When you watch the most poular shows, DirecTV is mentioned as a sponsor along with VW, and DirecTV logos are all over the set.

The presenters of the shows tell us that FSC is offered in glorious HD and to make sure that your provider is offering the channel in HD.

How strange then that DISH offers FSC in HD and yet a major sponsor like D* does not? Although it is a minority viewing channel, D* charges $12.99 for it. Why then isn't it on the list of new HD channels for May?

If the answer to that is ongoing contractual nengotiations then fine....I'll look forward to seeing FSC in HD next season. But if the answer is unavailable bandwidth due to the number of channels offered, that is totally unacceptable.

There's no way that D* should be a major sponsor of a premium channel, and not offer it to its own viewers in HD. If FSC isn't offered in HD at the start of the 2010/2011 season, then I predict that hundreds if not thousands of people like me will vote with their wallets and go to another provider.

D* need to focus and make good business decisions to protect their income, and not try and be all things to all people.

[tonyd79]

How strange then that DISH offers FSC in HD and yet a major sponsor like D* does not? Although it is a minority viewing channel, D* charges $12.99 for it. Why then isn't it on the list of new HD channels for May?



There are things in this business that make you shake your head.

Here, MASN2 is now in HD. Fios is their main sponsor for the HD broadcasts. Guess who does not have MASN2 in HD? Yup, Fios.