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. Jan 2, 2013 #21 of 459

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    I don't dispute that there might be fewer new shows, but I don't see that as a problem. Good shows will find a way to get on the air. Instead of true a la carte I would also be in favor of choosing channels based on programmers or more sub-packages. i.e. If I want one ESPN channel I must buy all of them. If I want HGTV I must buy all the Scripps networks. Even this would make more sense then what exists today. But it doesn't make sense that everyone must pay for ESPN and their exorbitant fees if they have zero interest in sports.
  2. Jan 2, 2013 #22 of 459

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Although that was also before there was anything to bundle with all the consolidation in the late 90s along with the launch of the digital sister channels. TNN and CMT were still Nashville based, Nickelodeon, VH1 and MTV didn't have all those sister digital channels, BET was still a separate company and didn't have Centric. ZDTV/TechTV didn't get absorbed by Comcast to expand G4. All those Discovery digital nets didn't exist yet outside of TLC. Discovery Fit and Health was just FitTV, a sister station to The Family Channel, which was still semi-religious. ESPN was one channel and wasn't owned by Disney yet. Disney Channel was still a premium cable channel in many areas and didn't have Toon Disney or SoapNet.
  3. Jan 2, 2013 #23 of 459

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    Very true. That's why I would like to see the ability to pick channel "groups". That seems more reasonable, but the programmer and distributor have a symbiotic relationship that won't be easily disrupted.
  4. Jan 2, 2013 #24 of 459

    onan38 Legend

    Jul 17, 2008
  5. Jan 3, 2013 #25 of 459

    joed32 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 27, 2006
    I'm guessing that was a few years back when all programming was cheaper. For me when I selected the channels I wanted it always was cheaper just to get a package that contained those channels than it was to pay for them individually.
  6. Jan 3, 2013 #26 of 459

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    Yes, same here. But there were also many more smaller packages to choose from. And then you could add 1 or 2 channels to a package to get exactly what you wanted.
  7. Jan 3, 2013 #27 of 459

    EricRobins Godfather

    Feb 9, 2005
    I don't see a la carte channels ever working.

    What we will see is a la carte PROGRAMMING. Instead of buying whole channels for 24/7/365, we will be just buying individual shows. We kind of already have that through, e.g., iTunes and the various sports league packages.
  8. Jan 3, 2013 #28 of 459

    tulanejosh Godfather

    May 23, 2008
    You should really read the Gizmodo article and sync it up with SatRacer's last comment. The process of bringing a program from concept to production will grind to a halt. Like it or not - the entertainment industry works on what is known as "the hits" model. Simply put - successful programs support and fund development of new programs. Most of those new programs fail but a few succeed, and the process repeats itself. This model works because of the existence of the channel and the bundle. Take those away - and you take away new programming.

    Now we can all sit here and take the pie in the sky approach of "well good programming will find a way", but quite frankly that ignores the business aspect of this business. Banks and investors and studios - for all their New York and Hollywood eccentricities - are very very good with money. And they don't really make a habit of tossing money into a project without some reasonable degree of confidence that their going to make their money back. And today, the hits model provides them with that confidence. But you take that away, and you kill their security. You find me one power player in New York or Hollywood that will put money into new programming projects that have a such a high failure rate, and I'll show you a liar.

    This model just does not work.
  9. Jan 3, 2013 #29 of 459

    Guesst925XTU Legend

    Jan 28, 2004
    That would be GREAT if it happened. I would save soooo much money by not being forced to pay for channels like ESPN/ESPNews/ESPN2/etc.
  10. Jan 3, 2013 #30 of 459

    tulanejosh Godfather

    May 23, 2008
    I don't believe that that's true. The consumer would not pay the wholesale price that their provider pays. If you think you are going to get your favorite 15 channels for about a $1/piece because that's what Directv currently pays - that's just not how this works. You would not get ESPN (just using that as an example - i know you don't watch it) for $5/month. You'd pay $25 or $30 month. Look at HBO as an example of channel valuations. HBO currently costs - a la carte - around $17.99 per month. And it have a fraction of the interest/penetration as an ESPN or some of the other channels. Expect to pay in the neighborhood of $20 - $25 for even low rated channels - per channel.

    Here's the thing people always forget. The companies that own these channels are not altruistic - they are in it to make money. And there's not a public company in the world where it's acceptable the shareholders to make $2B in profit one quarter, and then to turnaround the next and make only a fraction of that because they killed their bundles in favor of a la carte and they have less penetration than before. Networks are still going to get their money. Its just a question of whether $2B is divided by 20M customers or 100,000.

    For me personally - if i am still going to pay $100+ per month - i'd rather get 200 channels than 10.
  11. Jan 3, 2013 #31 of 459

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    Then that model will have to change. If there are fewer new shows then so be it. New shows were produced before forced bundling and if forced bundling ever goes away new shows will continue to be produced.

    I know everyone has a different opinion, but why do a lot of people think the current business practices can never change and are the only way it can ever work? Successful businesses will adapt to the current conditions.
  12. Jan 3, 2013 #32 of 459

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Maybe because the current model evolved o where it is. Finding its natural foothold.

    The closest we have to an a la carte model is the movies. Well, when the broadcast media became available, the number of movies created dropped like a stone and we are down to very few and even fewer good movies to watch. The only thing that saved the movies was the blockbuster. Good luck finding many niche movies. Good luck finding quality.

    The current system does work. What is threatening it is some greedy people, most of whom fall into the sports arena. Correct that problem and you will still have tons of programming relatively cheaply.

    Changing the whole paradigm just because a few are messing up is not a solution. Especially going to one that dismisses creativity.

    Not to mention the higher burden and cost (alluded to by you on your BUD answer a while back) that no one wants to take on.
  13. Jan 3, 2013 #33 of 459

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    Jul 21, 2008
    putting sports in there own packs can work. Having the other basic Channels stay as they are.
  14. Jan 3, 2013 #34 of 459

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    This would be a great start.
  15. Jan 3, 2013 #35 of 459

    tulanejosh Godfather

    May 23, 2008
    That's not realistic. It's not that it can't change, it's that it has no reason to change. Everyone involved in the actual business side of this is happy with the way things are. The networks, the studios, the providers (despite Directvs public claims otherwise) they all make a metric sh*t ton of money and they would make less with an a la carte by the program model. Why would anyone change from a model that is a license to print cash to one that doesn't offer that type of return?

    And besides that - to rip off the Gizmodo article - unlike the Music industry, which was on life support before Apple swooped in and offered a life line, the video distribution business is not on life support, it's stronger than its ever been. Billions in profit per quarter. No company will turn its nose up at billions in profit per quarter because a relatively small number of people are demanding change.

    What consumers want is largely irrelevant because quite frankly while you might gripe about it you still pay under the current model. And most will continue to pay. And some people may cut the cord sure - but not nearly enough to form a critical mass to force change.
  16. Jan 3, 2013 #36 of 459

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    I couldn't agree with this more. The current system is a cash cow and won't be easily changed.
  17. Jan 3, 2013 #37 of 459

    saleen351 Godfather

    Mar 28, 2006
    Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

    Two keys reasons:

    1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

    2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

    Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

    Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

    Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
    Lou Mannheim:
  18. Jan 3, 2013 #38 of 459

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    The question is whether or not channels that are supposedly documentary in charter should be concentrating on documenting such things as whack job individuals and messed up relationships without a balancing exploration of successful people and surprisingly successful collaborations. [See more at Only In America].

    Why show countless hours of spectacularly destructive fighting that obviously isn't worth saving when there are so many important persons and concepts that need to be placed prominently in the public eye?

    While I'm at it, family TV is no place for professional wrestling much less ultimate fighting.
  19. Jan 3, 2013 #39 of 459

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2006
  20. Jan 3, 2013 #40 of 459

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    Sep 3, 2007
    So your reasons why a la carte will happen boil down to the greater availability of HD cameras (ignoring the many other production elements, expertise involved, and the talent at every level) and that the economics of pay TV will turn people away from pay TV? That's it?

    You believe that content owners and producers felt threatened by...Google Fiber? I don't think you know what Google Fiber is.

Share This Page