1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel to Offer A La Cart?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ssm06, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. Chuck W

    Chuck W Icon

    853
    12
    Mar 26, 2002
    Connecticut
    Yes and no. Look at the Yankees when they opened their new stadium. They skyrocketed ticket prices, especially on the premium seats behind home plate. They thought, well people will still buy them...

    BUT they didn't. For several months, all you saw were empty seats behind home plate. The Yankees finally renegged and cut prices on many of their seats, in some cases significantly.

    There are limits and I believe people are begining to hit them now with cable TV, thus why cord cutting is becoming so popular and a la carte programming is in demand.
     
  2. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    470
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    So we get get lower quality, which is what people have been telling you. Quality actors, writers producers, directors,etc aren't just going to accept lower rates. They will walk, or corners will be cut elsewhere, resulting in lower quality productions. I'm not willing to go there to save five bucks a month on my TV bill.
     
  3. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The Yankees also had the misfortune of opening their stadium at the same time as the banking collapse. The financial industry was a big purchaser of high priced seats.

    They did not price in a vacuum. They did their market research. But they could not plan for a major source of revenue to have its own problems.
     
  4. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    lol. That's not how business works. I'm sure that anyone who has had a pay cut will simply not accept it. If it were only that easy. ;)

    Again, the TV industry isn't special no matter what some may think. There will always be people trying to make more money than the next guy by improving the product. It doesn't matter if it's a TV show or a toilet plunger.

    Hook, line and sinker.
     
  5. mitchflorida

    mitchflorida Godfather

    536
    18
    May 18, 2009
    From what I am reading about Intel's plan for TV , it seems to be rather clueless. Not much different than what we can get now from cable and satellite providers. They aren't going to undercut Dish or DTV. Prediction: It will just lose a ton of money because Intel has no idea what they are doing or how to differentiate from the current providers.
     
  6. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Is the NFL going to accept less money? (on 10 year contracts?) Are the players going to accept less money anytime soon?

    Now turn the question around, boxing was king. Roller Derby was queen. Then they blew up on TV. Was it pricing, I don't think so. Since then boxing has revived at higher levels than before, just different model. Roller Derby was dead but is crawling back, perhaps. Could this happen to the NFL? Absolutely. But that would be from poor brand decisions more than cost problems.

    So what does ESPN do? (Especially for the next 8 years?)

    I don't expect prices to lower. Ala carte won't make that happen. But it might stop price increases--with less content. Far less, most likely.

    Or people will find that reality sneaked up on them when netflix has to do the same thing cable has had to do--radically increase prices to catch up.

    The industry is used to making $X Billions from customers. We might stop X from increasing but don't expect it to drop.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  7. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,291
    67
    Nov 23, 2005
    I don't know Tom. It seems like there was enough pushback on Sunday Ticket pricing that it dropped this year. Maybe there were other reasons for the price drop, but that was the perception.
     
  8. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    That was the perception? By who?
     
  9. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    If the networks don't offer as much money then the NFL would have no choice but to accept less money. What would happen if during the next round of TV contract negotiations all networks offer less money? The answer is that the NFL would accept the highest offer even if it was less than the current deal.

    And before you say "But the networks won't offer less.", I know that it won't happen anytime soon. I'm just saying that IF they did the NFL would have to accept less money, and they would.
     
  10. mitchflorida

    mitchflorida Godfather

    536
    18
    May 18, 2009
    Of course the players will play for less. What could they do for a living except football? they might make $100,000 a year somewhere else.
     
  11. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Another way to look at it is that the industry did it to themselves. They spawned this growth in low-value channels.

    What I see is the industry wanting more and more and more revenue. The only way they could do it was to create more and more channels with cheap low-value programming and stick it to the advertisers and we chump customers locked into bundles.

    There is little free market in this situation for the consumer. I'm not referring to you but there are lot of pro-business people that think free markets are great if it helps them against a competitor but thinks its terrible if it applies to them.

    Access is worthless if nobody watches. I've got hundreds of channels that have never been on my tuners. That's why all these channels have cheap advertising - because they don't have the viewers.

    Free markets are not bad. Why should this one industry be allowed to operate without free market controls? Regardless of the net effect.

    The number and content of channels needs a huge culling.
     
  12. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    And what would happen if pigs flew without benefit of an airplane.

    How about a discussion of reality rather than unstructured what ifs.
     
  13. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    They would crash.

    I agree a discussion is pointless when the other side has bought into the company line.
     
  14. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    It isn't the company line. How is it better for content providers if they generate far less revenue to be used in the production of or purchase of said content? How is it better for service providers if they then generate far less revenue to be used to advance their technology and provide their own service? How is any of this good for the consumer? How is to good for consumers to limit their content? You're basically suggesting that we take film production, television production, live event production and the service provider industry...and just destroy it and that will better for consumers. A la carte is a nightmare scenario and benefits NO ONE.
     
  15. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    Your conclusions are based on false assumptions. You also stated things which I'm not advocating nor suggesting.
     
  16. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    The real problem here is that the so-called "worthless" channels are not the problem. If you added up all the really low rated networks their contribution to your monthly bill would be be less than $5. If they ALL ceased operation, MAYBE your bill goes down by $10, assuming DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, etc. passes along the operational savings.

    The channels that are driving the cost spiral are the POPULAR ones...channels like ESPN, CBS, NBC, FOX, TNT, USA, regional sports networks, etc. More than 50% of the programming cost component of your bill goes to handful of networks, none of which are going away, and most of which are desired by most viewers. So, even if we had ala carte pricing, few people would drop any channels that significantly contribute to their monthly bill.

    Bottom line, it all boils down to 4 points:

    1) If everybody's, or even a sizable portion of viewers, bills go down that means less money going into the system.

    2) If less money goes into the system, then less less money comes out (since operating costs in between are fairly fixed), meaning less money in the hands of content providers.

    3) If the content providers get less money, they will produce less content.

    4) If there is less content produced, we, the viewers, have less to watch.

    Anyone that advocates that ala carte pricing would be a good thing, has to refute these points, if they can.
     
  17. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    I'm still waiting for someone to justify why this industry deserves to be outside normal free market pressures.

    Off the top of my head the only other industries that are allowed to do that are regulated public utilities.

    Will it be ugly during a transition? Sure thing. In the end the industry will adapt and prices, quality, quantity, and demand will reach equilibrium. That is how a free market economy works.

    Seems to work just fine for movies. They sink or swim on their own. Still plenty of high quality movies being made. No, "TV" is not fundamentally different - both are entertainment.
     
  18. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    We don't watch ESPN in our house and only regional sports networks when a local team is doing well. Sports ain't our thing.

    I get CBS/NBC/FOX OTA.

    We watch maybe 1 series a season on TNT/USA.

    So your explanation shows just how much I'm getting screwed.

    Unlike sports, we like movies. I'm on Premier so I have all the HBO/SHO/MAX/STARZ/TMC. I think every subscriber that wants the channels you mention should be required to have all the movie channels too. It's only fair and its absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

    So why would I, or others like me, care if less money went into sports content? If it is a majority-funded thing then the majority will keep it and they won't lose that much. At least then the free market forces can be applied to them - directly.

    Interesting that the OTA networks are playing this game. Why haven't they shut off OTA entirely? They don't make a dime transmitting it. In fact they scream if anyone talks about taking away their bandwidth allotment. Why are OTA channels in the lowest bundle?
     
  19. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...the United States does not have a free market economy.
     
  20. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    All of these points assume that the content providers won't change how they produce content in response to a different economic model. The basis for my argument is that they will change how they currently do things.
     

Share This Page