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. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    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".
     
  2. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    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.
     
  3. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...comparing completely different industries and distribution models that have no bearing on a la carte for television service providers. It's apples to Buicks.
     
  4. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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.
     
  5. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    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.
     
  6. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    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.
     
  7. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Ooooh. I know. One is a la carte and the other is bundled.
     
  8. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    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.
     
  9. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006

    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.
     
  10. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.
     
  11. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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.
     
  12. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    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.
     
  13. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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.
     
  14. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    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.
     
  15. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,641
    34
    Jul 21, 2008
    what about a sports only pack + say the big channels like tnt / tbs that some time show big sports events.
     
  16. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    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.
     
  17. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    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.
     
  18. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    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.
     
  19. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    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.
     
  20. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    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.
     

Share This Page