Buying into a cable/ TV provider is like getting a Chipotle burrito. Each consumable behemoth offers much satisfaction in what is seemingly packaged into a shell of wanted variety of flavor. Look underneath the shell however, and filler consists most of what's inside. The product isn't necessarily bad. It just feels as though one has to pick through a lot to get what they ordered.
Their popularity probably won't cause for change in how either are sold, but it's worth a thought toward a future of TV where $17.99 gets a recent college grad just the basics in ESPN and HBO, while a single parent pays the same for a few kids channels, ABC, and HGTV. A future where the consumer chooses what he or she wants in terms of programming, and pays only for that content. One that may not be too far away according to an LA Times article outlining how two senators on opposite sides of the fence are trying to co-sponsor a bill that pushes the TV-industry to offer programming "a la carte" found here:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-senator-bl...
The semantics of the matter are varied and complex for sure. Nonetheless, ESPN chimes in to weakly defend the providers by threatening a price hike due to a lesser audience. The reality is that increased competition sucks.
The Big Ten has had its cash cow mooing for the past two years while every conference has been echoing intentions toward their own network and brand behind it. Imagine a Saturday game versus an FCS opponent or early season basketball game no longer listed as blacked out or available via stream only.
That reality for the B1G Ten has paid dividends pushing viewership up among other sports too, especially women's.
Competition like that could add more Thursday night football games to their own docket, or do away with them altogether, because the fans dictate when to watch versus when the provider can stuff more games.
Do you think this is where we're headed? Have an idea of what that could look like for us and the ACC? Could it change how we watch football?
Feel free to discuss below.
Comments
the issue with this isnt the providers i.e. dish network or directv, its more the networks themselves demanding that more than one of their channels be carried and delivered to each customer. for example espn is owned by disney, so in order for espn to be placed in a package disney will demand that the disney channel or abc family is also included, thats how the programming packages get built. also why the "a la carte" isnt available. if the providers had the choice to do that they would because it could potentially save them money as well
vtnova makes a really good point. Ideally, we'd be able to pick and choose. I've wondered why we couldn't for a long time. It's a shame we can't, but with the way our tv programming is set up, it will likely remain this way for a while.
Also, I'm not sure about you, but my Chipotle burritos do not consist of any filler. They're just gigantic and delicious.
Yea I'm not sure how he's making his burritos
I love them too. When finished though I feel like I've eaten some meat, beans, some salsa, and an entire bag of rice.
If that's the case, you're getting yours made wrong.
i think the link is wrong?
here is the link for the LA times article
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-senator-bl...
Thanks, I checked the link before and it went to the LA Times article but keeps diverting back to that picture for some reason.
Big Media will fight this tooth and nail to protect their river of cash. I've always said I've wanted this. But I'm not sure what it would mean if I got it.
On a slightly related note, my cable box is the least technologically advanced piece of equipment in my life. And I depend on it for most of my media. If Apple TV weren't made my Apple I'd buy it.
Really? I would've thought your treadmill would be.
Saddle. Bareback is the way to go, though. Otherwise, horseshoes.
I thought horses love apples?
Nay!
Yep the only people that an ala carte system hurts are the networks like Disney, Viacom, NBC because it would cut into their advertising dollars. And unfortunately they are the ones that really matter because they own all the content and control what's done with it
Similar to what horse said above, TV viewing will be completely different in 10 years. Soon every network will have an app that you can purchase to stream television over internet. The way people view video segments is changing.
I see Apple TV-like products being the norm in 5-10 years. Everything over wifi, everything available for streaming whenever the footage is released. You still pay monthly for certain packages, but the cable box will be a thing of the past.
What I hate is that even though you pay for programming you still have to watch commercials. What's up with that?
Yeah, ESPN gets twice as much revenue from sub fees than from ads.
I have worked for DirecTV for a little over 10 years now and the a la carte idea was kicked around about 3-4 years ago and it was squashed by the big 3 (direcTV, dish and comcast) for several reasons. One of the biggest would obviously be that they all would probably go out of business or the selection of channel options would decrease dramatically.
The providers pay BILLIONS of dollars for the programming that they distribute and make that money back from you paying your $70-100 a month for your programming. If you decided to go a la carte you would pay $15-20 a month for a basic package with QVC, the weather channel, and your terrestrial channels (local channels) and pay a service fee for each additional channel, pretty much making every channel like HBO. The providers would still have to pay the huge broadcasting fees to each network to make sure they stayed competitive with the other providers but they would lose their asses for channels like the Game Show Network, where 99% of us would not pay for that channel if given the option. This would either cause the channel to go off the air, providers to go belly up or pass those charges for the BS channels through other means- charge you a little more for ESPN or NFL network to pay for Discovery Health.
These channels would in the beginning start out at a few dollars a piece and would possibly go to a "pick 5" type package. Sounds great in theory right? If you currently have HBO think about how much extra it was 10 years ago..like 6 or 7 bucks. Now I think it's up to $16-$20 a month depending on the provider, and there hasn't been a new Real Sex episode since like 1995! This is what would happen for every single channel that starts to pick up a larger volume of customers- demand dictates the individual pricing increases. ESPN wouldn't give a damn about you personally they would just try to raise their asking price to the service providers which of course is passed along to you and I...before you know it to have your 5-8 precious channels you would be paying just a few dollars less than you are now and having a huge variety to chose from.
One last thing this would do is prevent the new upstart channels from forming. Everyone on this board has probably watched something on Spike! and thought about how great of a channel it is. Spike! would have never been created under this model because no one would pay for a channel they know nothing about and a provider isn't going to pay millions of dollars for a channel that no one is buying.
Sorry I know this was long winded and a little all over the place but I hope you get the general idea of what I was trying to say.
i work for dish and this is definitely correct. its easy to say that the ala carte system would be better and for a select few it would be, but they avg person wouldnt end up saving anything in the long run and would sacrifice the variety that they currently enjoy
Thanks for the info! I do not work in the industry nor know how it all works. I just wanted to see what everyone thought and have those like you give a little more insight.
Yeah, I realize that the a la carte system would result in higher sub fees to make up for fewer viewers, so instead of paying $5.80 for ESPN (not to mention the rest of their 7 main channels) I'd be paying maybe $10-15. I definitely wouldn't want to go to that system, especially since there are occasionally things that I'd want to see on one of those 100 channels I don't normally watch and almost certainly wouldn't pay to add to my subscription.
Also, didn't Spike start off as TNN like 20 or 30 years ago? It has been in my basic cable package as long as I can remember my family having cable.
While I don't want to discredit your inside knowledge, I think that it fails to take into account that prices would be set by the market, not by what the company wants to charge. As more popular channels like ESPN raise their prices, they would likely see a drop in the number of their subscribers due to people finding alternatives, such as watching the game(s) at a friends house or at their local bar. On the other side of the coin, new channels would have to gain subscribers by having periods where the channel is offered for free to let viewers sample the content and initially having low subscription prices. Charging high prices without regard for consumers can only work in instances when the product is necessary and there aren't good alternatives, otherwise consumers will either switch to a cheaper alternative or discontinue using the product. Its very hard for a monopoly to exist for a long period of time unless there are laws that limit competition.
All that said, I think the bill is unnecessary. I personally think that entertainment is going to go towards more of a Hulu/Netflix/Youtube model, with users able to view content at their convenience. There have been several very good examples of movies/shows that have been created for this model. Netflix has made at least two original series along with an extra season of Arrested Development, there are some really good series' available on Youtube. A personal favorite is The Guild and another well known movie that was made specifically for the internet and outside the traditional big media companies is Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog.
Local bars and friend's houses are not really an alternative. Both still have to get the game through ESPN. Furthermore, Bars are not cheap and a friend's house is not convenient for casual viewing. If I only watched Hokie games, then yes, I could (and often) go to the bar or to a friend's house. However, I typically watch ESPN for all the other games (~5 games a week) and so I would definitely want ESPN delivered to my own house. Without a true source alternative, then ESPN essentially would control the market and set prices as they wish.
I agree that this is true in all forms of recorded events. However, non-scripted, live-action events such as football will never thrive in this model. Watching the game after-the-fact is never the same as watching it as it happens. Most of the intrigue is watching the game unfold.
I don't think we have any idea where tv and perhaps even football will be in ten years. Fifteen years ago, HD wasn't the norm, and most of us still had 4:3 ratio screens. And given the O'Bannon case, we may see an entirely different college game. Add in concussion issues, and, well...I hope we have a game to watch on our holographic tvs...or whatever technology we have.
Speaking of holograms, I think I remember reading that when Japan entered their bid for either the 2022 or 2026 World Cup, they said they would have the technology by then to be able to basically stream the game from another stadium into their own stadium with every player as holograms. Imagine being able to watch a game in Lane that was being played in Chestnut Hill or Coral Gables.
Only if they make our crowd into holograms to beam back to the opposing stadium :)
While I wish the option was available to pay for only the channels I watch (mostly sports, FX, TNT, HBO/Showtime, and normal broadcast stuff), it would probably end up raising price per channel very quickly. My biggest concern though, is the government involving itself in yet another enterprise. That's the quickest way to have a price increase and an efficiency decrease. If people want change for the better, they'll have to find a free market solution, unless we want to be watching football on PBSsports.
I want to stream it because I'm not near a TV!