OUTSIDE THE BOX: a la Carte Gaining Support

[Nick]

By Paul Budde, Budde Communication

I remember that whenever I have supported the call for a la
carte services in pay TV I received a very hostile reception,
both from the various cable TV experts, who said I had no idea
what I was talking about, and from cable operators, who said
pay TV can't survive in an a la carte environment. They argue
that to make pay TV work they will have to bundle unpopular
content with poplar content.

It amazes me the industry has gotten away with that argument
for decades.

Time and again I have pointed out that the current pay TV
pricing model is flawed and that this is the main factor standing
in the way of pay TV becoming a more viable businessmodel.
Customers should be able to choose what programs they want
to buy - they shouldn't be forced to buy programs in which
they are not interested. That's a negative customer service
approach and, as soon as customers are able to choose, they
will rebel against the current model.

And, slowly but surely, the tide is turning. With more pressure
coming from new technologies the pay TV industry will have to
concede defeat and give customers what they want. In the end
customer demand will prove to be stronger than vendor supply.

IPTV will be the ultimate video-on-demand service and the cable
and satellite TV industries are slowly beginning to appreciate
the competition that will be come from this if they fail to listen
to their customers, who all demand choice.

It was great to see that support is continuing to surface for a
la carte options; the issue gained attention after Federal
Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin suggested
cable/satellite TV program choice should be given more
consideration.

Paul Budde operates Paul Budde Communication, a global
telecommunications and information highways consultancy and
research company based in Australia. The company's Web site can
be found at: http://www.Budde.com.au.

www.SkyRetailer.com - used with permission

[Greg Bimson]

This guy is in Austraila, where on demand-type services are a bit more palatable for their viewing public. This will not work in America. If it does, we'll be paying more for less. Something I'm sure everyone will love.

[FTA Michael]

You say we would be paying more for less. Consumers Union says we would be paying less for the only channels we watch. Some folks say they don't care, just so long as they aren't supporting channels that offend them.

We don't even know what a la carte mechanism would be implemented (themed packages? every individual channel? opt-out reverse a la carte?) so it's rash to say for sure exactly what would be the result.

[Greg Bimson]

And does that go back to the original author?

[FTA Michael]

The original author says that support for a la carte is growing. (I suppose that going from 0.1% to 1% is growing. :) ) I can't find any price predictions in the original statement. He only asserts that should a la carte arrive, pay TV won't die. I'll go out on a limb and agree with that prediction.

Then again, he also says that most consumers will prefer choice to packages. I think there are a whole lot of people who just want The Works, whatever they consider that to be. They won't be spending a Saturday afternoon puzzling over a 100-channel checklist to see how their bill ads up; they'll just order a package and be done with it. But I could be wrong.

[Stewart Vernon]

If you go to a buffet restaurant and they have a $6.95 all-you-can eat buffet which features some things you like and other things that you don't... do you feel "ripped off" because you are paying for things that you don't eat?

If that same restaurant has a $7.95 steak platter, that is not all-you-can-eat, do you order that instead? Is your answer the same if you could get the steak on the buffet?

How about if the steak platter was $5.95? Do you save the dollar? Or do you go ahead and pay the extra dollar and sample a few other things, like dessert, from the buffet?

Just thinking out loud.

[Doug Higley]

Once in awhile an analogy really works...HDME: That one worked. :)
Brilliant, in that switched my thinking. You are absolutely correct. Thanks!

I'll think of the Lint Channel and the Arm Pit Hair Chanel as I do the Brussels Sprouts at Home Buffet. Cool.


Doug

[Stewart Vernon]

Once in awhile an analogy really works...HDME: That one worked. :)
Brilliant, in that switched my thinking. You are absolutely correct. Thanks!

I'll think of the Lint Channel and the Arm Pit Hair Chanel as I do the Brussels Sprouts at Home Buffet. Cool.

Cool... My good deed for the year out of the way and its only the first week of Jan! :)

Hey, I'm bound to get an analogy right sometimes.

[the_bear]

There is a similar thread on AVS where posters overwhelmingly want the US government to pass a law banning TV service providers from bundling channels. I’m personally anti-government intervention on this one.

[Stewart Vernon]

There is a similar thread on AVS where posters overwhelmingly want the US government to pass a law banning TV service providers from bundling channels. I’m personally anti-government intervention on this one.

I hear you. Even if I was for a la carte, I would NOT be for government intervention. That almost never fixes anything in a customer-beneficial way.

[Doug Higley]

No...but it gives more power to the phoney politicians...which is what they are ALL about 24/7. Benefits you or not if it puts $ in their pockets or a tad extra power in their grubby paws, it will be.