Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Intel to Offer A La Cart?


  • Please log in to reply
458 replies to this topic

#141 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:27 PM

Google?

2 seconds shows this from almost a year ago: Young People Are Watching, but Less Often on TV.


And not my responsibility to google it. Your re one making the argument and not backing it up. I've backed my claims up with revenue and subscriber statistics. It's not too much to ask you to do more than say "it's just the trends, man".

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#142 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

They will certainly fight it to the death.

What is content? Who creates it? Does it have to be owned by broadcast networks? How many networks have their own production studio?

I believe most content is created by independent production studios and then sold to networks.

My wife recently told me that the series Hunted, which is on Cinemax (and BBC), was being dropped by BBC but that Cinemax was going to continue it. Looking at the detail of that link shows there are 3 production companies - one of them is BBC. Cinemax is not one of them.

Dexter, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Strike Back, Homeland, Fringe, Grimm, NCIS all have multiple production companies. I stopped looking for more but I haven't found a single program that is produced only by a production studio owned by a distributor.

It's no different than music artists vs record labels.

A viable distribution alternative will have no problem getting content.


Depends on your perspective whether digital distribution of music is viable. Many artists claim they make very little from the sale of their music digitally. So basically you want what's good for you.

#143 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:49 PM

...comparing completely different industries and distribution models that have no bearing on a la carte for television service providers. It's apples to Buicks.
DTV = Digital Television

#144 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,547 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

Music industry:


[*]drastically reduce songs - nope
[*]dramatically drive up cost - nope
[*]gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe

Classic FUD.


I see. You reject the electricity comparison as not the same model but you go to a model that was always a la carte. Yup.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#145 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

I'm not trying to be recalcitrant here toward anyone but I'm just not seeing the "why" for a la carte or paradigm shifts. The best argument I've seen is that some customers are tired of paying for channels they don't watch. Ok I get it. But a la carte is not going to be cheaper because that would involve the companies and contractors involved in the production and distribution of video to take less money and I just don't see that happening. Business models can change but they do so for reasons that make more money not less.

#146 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

Music industry:

  • drastically reduce songs - nope
  • dramatically drive up cost - nope
  • gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe
Classic FUD.


The economics of the music industry and the television are so radically different it doesn't pass the smell test. There is no "creativity" in cost to create an album. You use a studio, you lay tracks, you cut the album. Much different than video where a series can cost more than $50 million dollars to create. Movies, sometimes in excess of $150 million. The cost of music albums has not gone up appreciably.

Sorry, just not even close to a good example.

By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase the entire CD album yet that same album on iTUNES costs more. Hmm. :) Despite there being no case to create, no CD to create, etc...yet it's still cheaper than the digital download.

Edited by Satelliteracer, 12 January 2013 - 07:35 PM.

DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#147 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,547 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

The economics of the music industry and the television are so radically different it doesn't pass the smell test. There is no "creativity" in cost to create an album. You use a studio, you lay tracks, you cut the album. Much different than video where a series can cost more than $50 million dollars to create. Movies, sometimes in excess of $150 million. The cost of music albums has not gone up appreciably.

Sorry, just not even close to a good example.

By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase a CD that costs LESS than that same album on iTUNES. Hmm. :)


Ooooh. I know. One is a la carte and the other is bundled.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#148 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 418 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

I'm not trying to be recalcitrant here toward anyone but I'm just not seeing the "why" for a la carte or paradigm shifts. The best argument I've seen is that some customers are tired of paying for channels they don't watch. Ok I get it. But a la carte is not going to be cheaper because that would involve the companies and contractors involved in the production and distribution of video to take less money and I just don't see that happening. Business models can change but they do so for reasons that make more money not less.


Of course they're not going to do it voluntarily. The reason the programmers don't want a la carte is to protect their revenue stream. The only way it'll happen is when the costs become so high that consumers finally say enough is enough. Just like with anything else. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but give it time. It might be two years or twenty years.

As has been discussed here before the best (from a consumer point of view) way would probably be to have the ability to pick from mini-bundles like all ESPN channels or all Scripps channels, etc. It makes no sense for millions of people to help pay for athletes' mega salaries when they don't care at all about sports. The sports channels are the poster child for this problem. Let the people who want the sports channels pay for them. I understand the argument of having everyone subsidize some type of programming, but no valid argument exists for this subsidy to apply to the sports channels.

#149 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

Of course they're not going to do it voluntarily. The reason the programmers don't want a la carte is to protect their revenue stream. The only way it'll happen is when the costs become so high that consumers finally say enough is enough. Just like with anything else. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but give it time. It might be two years or twenty years.

As has been discussed here before the best (from a consumer point of view) way would probably be to have the ability to pick from mini-bundles like all ESPN channels or all Scripps channels, etc. It makes no sense for millions of people to help pay for athletes' mega salaries when they don't care at all about sports. The sports channels are the poster child for this problem. Let the people who want the sports channels pay for them. I understand the argument of having everyone subsidize some type of programming, but no valid argument exists for this subsidy to apply to the sports channels.



If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.

I honestly think some people think every show is a hit and guaranteed. If that were the case, it would be much easier argument to make, but of course that isn't the case. Content creation costs a TON of money, fortunately or unfortunately, it is simply reality.

The sports option you are suggesting would be great, but I don't see that happening. They have tremendous leverage even if only 40% of the people are watching those channels. If a provider doesn't have ESPN, they are going to lose massive numbers of subscribers. Because of the leverage of ESPN, they are going to demand 85% to 90% penetration, so the mini-bundle idea is dead before it gets off the ground.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#150 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 418 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.

I honestly think some people think every show is a hit and guaranteed. If that were the case, it would be much easier argument to make, but of course that isn't the case. Content creation costs a TON of money, fortunately or unfortunately, it is simply reality.

The sports option you are suggesting would be great, but I don't see that happening. They have tremendous leverage even if only 40% of the people are watching those channels. If a provider doesn't have ESPN, they are going to lose massive numbers of subscribers. Because of the leverage of ESPN, they are going to demand 85% to 90% penetration, so the mini-bundle idea is dead before it gets off the ground.


I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.

#151 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,547 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:52 PM

I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.


But the providers will probably find a different solution.

Yes, prices are going up, but the real bone of contention is the price of sports. The rest is livable. You may see an adjustment in sports tiers or a consolidation (heck Fox is already buying its way to merging split markets) that could make prices insane or calm down. Right now, the splintering is the biggest problem. Look at the LA market. Throw in PAC 12 with that and you almost have a channel per team. Drives the cost to the consumer up.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#152 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:05 PM

But the providers will probably find a different solution.

Yes, prices are going up, but the real bone of contention is the price of sports. The rest is livable. You may see an adjustment in sports tiers or a consolidation (heck Fox is already buying its way to merging split markets) that could make prices insane or calm down. Right now, the splintering is the biggest problem. Look at the LA market. Throw in PAC 12 with that and you almost have a channel per team. Drives the cost to the consumer up.


With FOX about to compete with ESPN as they launch their FOX Sports One network, I only see prices going up. They need content so they will overbid to get it. They are offering $500 million right now for the Catholic schools that are breaking off from the Big East. Crazy.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#153 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,547 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:09 PM

With FOX about to compete with ESPN as they launch their FOX Sports One network, I only see prices going up. They need content so they will overbid to get it. They are offering $500 million right now for the Catholic schools that are breaking off from the Big East. Crazy.


That is where the bubble is. None of the hoopla about a la carte is about TVLand. It is espn and the RSNs. And maybe Fox.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#154 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,734 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

Yes, prices are going up, but the real bone of contention is the price of sports.

The bone of contention is the placement of sports. The fallout will be that they will continue to cost more and the providers will eventually have to take some of the burden off the subscribers that don't live or die by sports and make the subscribers that cost the most pay their fair share rather than continuing to subsidize them and their many receivers. For DIRECTV and their old business model, this would have been a catastrophe.

They need to step carefully as the pressure to get PAC-12 and other sports nets increases.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#155 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,211 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:21 PM

If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.

I honestly think some people think every show is a hit and guaranteed. If that were the case, it would be much easier argument to make, but of course that isn't the case. Content creation costs a TON of money, fortunately or unfortunately, it is simply reality.

The sports option you are suggesting would be great, but I don't see that happening. They have tremendous leverage even if only 40% of the people are watching those channels. If a provider doesn't have ESPN, they are going to lose massive numbers of subscribers. Because of the leverage of ESPN, they are going to demand 85% to 90% penetration, so the mini-bundle idea is dead before it gets off the ground.


what about a sports only pack + say the big channels like tnt / tbs that some time show big sports events.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#156 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:23 AM

I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.


Cost to the customer is only one part of the equation. Customers might gripe, but if they only gripe that's not going to change anything. And model isn't going to change until they do more than gripe. And they won't do more than gripe until theres alternative content sources and there won't be alternative continent sources until they do more than gripe. Circular. Chicken and egg.

#157 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 579 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:22 AM

What young people do today has a way of changing when they have jobs and kids. Predicting trends based of what 16 - 24 year olds do right this second is silly. When I was that age I watched very little tv - I was out doing things. And I wasn't alone in that. By that articles rationale TV should have died off when people of my generation gained a greater degree of social control. But it didn't die - because people change their behaviors as they get older.


The article actually covers ages below 35, not 25. Is 25-35 not prime job/kids age?

"Adults ages 25 to 34, for instance, watched about four and a half fewer hours of television in the third quarter of 2011 than at the same time in 2010 — the equivalent of about nine minutes a day. Viewers ages 12 to 17 also watched about nine fewer minutes a day. The demographic in between, those ages 18 to 24, watched about six fewer minutes a day."

Loss for entire range of 12-34 years.

Sounds like ingrained behavior - that will continue as they age.

#158 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 418 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:29 AM

Cost to the customer is only one part of the equation. Customers might gripe, but if they only gripe that's not going to change anything. And model isn't going to change until they do more than gripe. And they won't do more than gripe until theres alternative content sources and there won't be alternative continent sources until they do more than gripe. Circular. Chicken and egg.


Exactly. That's why I said it won't change until customers stop paying for content. The only thing that will change the current model is when the $$$ stop flowing to the programmers.

#159 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 579 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:36 AM

Depends on your perspective whether digital distribution of music is viable. Many artists claim they make very little from the sale of their music digitally. So basically you want what's good for you.


That's what they used to say about the old model too. Who got most the $? The distributors and retailers.

If it weren't for people willing to pay for entertainment they wouldn't have a job. They create a product like anyone else and that product has a value - set by a complicated set of conflicting interests. When the consumer's view of the value changes then so be it. That's the way the world works.

This is all really just a microcosm of a much bigger problem with the entire economic system. The game is about prying as much money out of the consumer as is possible. If you can manipulate long enough you can build a system that sustains disproportionate reward. Rarely the "system" becomes so bloated and obvious that it fails under it's own abuses. Then they cry relentlessly when there is a challenge to their gravy train.

In a nutshell that is the root of all these discussions.

Edited by unixguru, 13 January 2013 - 11:59 AM.


#160 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 579 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:54 AM

By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase the entire CD album yet that same album on iTUNES costs more. Hmm. :) Despite there being no case to create, no CD to create, etc...yet it's still cheaper than the digital download.


That's what happens to the loser in a competitive market. If CD profit was the only reason BB spent that floor space you can bet CDs would be gone - they help get bodies into the store. It won't be long until CD/DVD/BluRay is gone from BB.

Apparently it doesn't cost me anything extra to go to BB. No extra time or gas or wear on my vehicle.

So we can buy more product for less money at BB. Explain why this business model has plummeted and nearly died.

The answer is explosively obvious - people don't want to pay for crap they don't want. They only want a few songs off of most albums and the album price for those songs is too high (ie. bundling fails).

If the artists want to make more money again, and I'm certain this will happen, then different songs on the same album will have different value. The dogs will be cheap and the hits will cost more. Let's say 2 out of 8 songs on an album are popular. They can double the price of those 2 songs and they will still cost 50% of the old album cost. Then end result is that albums really will be gone for good.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...