6 ms·

Consumers are not going to like a la carte TV. They think they want it, but they don't. People like Netflix because it's one huge all you can eat buffet. They

Consumers are not going to like a la carte TV. They think they want it, but they don't. People like Netflix because it's one huge all you can eat buffet. They are going to recoil from "You want to watch the Americans? Just 3.99 for FX Networks package." "Better Call Saul? 4.99 for the AMC package (5.49 during Walking Dead months)." More tiers is probably the right way forward. Segregating sports, movie channels, prestige cable networks into packages might work.

ghaff 9y ago
Consumers like buffets. They also don't want to pay a lot of money. You're already seeing add-on channels for Amazon. I'll grumble but generally I prefer a la carte unless the buffet doesn't carry a significant premium over the a la carte price. There are very few shows that are must see for me and I'll buy those individually.
- rhino369 9y ago
  But a la cart won't change the average price for the average consumer. The price the cable company pays per station has the viewership figures baked in. They know the average customers doesn't watch most channels. You aren't really paying for them now. Now each customer isn't the average customer. Some will win (because they use very few channels), but some would lose (light users who watch a large variety of channels sporadically).
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I was speaking about myself specifically. I watch very little through my cable subscription and basically never turn the TV to "whatever is on." I agree that on average people are unlikely to save a lot though it may change some behaviors to the degree that watching something becomes an affirmative decision to spend money.
rebootthesystem 9y ago
Netflix streaming, in my opinion, has degraded significantly in terms of programming choices. A few years ago when we got the service you could find tons of fantastic movies and tv shows to watch. Today I've switched away in frustration after spending 30+ minutes browsing and searching for something to watch. The menu is mostly filled with crappy 1 to 3 star content. You can't even find good movies from the 80's and 90's. Sure, maybe a few here and there but, for the most part the experience is an exercise in futility. My kids are watching a Spanish kid's show to improve their language understanding. They are 60 episodes into a 260 episode show. When they are done I think I might cancel Netflix and move on. Here's the criteria: When I find myself browsing regular TV listings to record good movies to watch and endure having to commercial-skip every two minutes to watch them. What that happens. And you actually end-up with a bunch of really good contemporary movies recorded. That's the moment when you realize Netflix, today, has a bad product. And that's already happened multiple times.
- Goladus 9y ago
  > Netflix streaming, in my opinion, has degraded significantly in terms of programming choices. One exception I'd say is that Netflix Original Programming is getting quite good. Narcos, The Crown, and Stranger Things are all fantastic. But yes, in general their selection of quality 3rd party titles is horrible. It's rare to browse Netflix hoping to find a specific movie and not be disappointed.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    They've never been very good for movies on streaming. And, unfortunately, their DVD back catalog is being allowed to degrade as well.
  - rebootthesystem 9y ago
    I haven't paid much attention to Netflix originated content. Any more I absolutely dread switching over to Netflix because I know it'll be a 30+ minute exercise in frustration. My wife and older kid ignore it completely. Unless things change I'm cancelling by the end of the year. Amazon Prime seemed a bit better but lately it seems to be filled with the same kind of crud. Bad "B" and below movies. Seriously, who watched this crap? There are thousands of good movies out there. Maybe it's a revenue struggle with the studios, I don't know. The fact that you can't even find "The Marx Brother" or "The Three Stooges" or "Abbott and Costello" on these services might be a clue. In other words, you can't find popular black and white movies that by all accounts should fill these services. Or good 80's, 90's and earlier TV series. Not there. Maybe a few here and there, but not en-masse as they should be. I was looking for Battlestar Galactica the other day. Not the goofy one, the other one with Edward James Olmos. It was there a few years back but no-longer available. My oldest kid wasn't old enough to watch it then but he could now (and it is a good series). Gone. Not sure why.
j-c-hewitt 9y ago
I really strongly disagree. In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. The only networks we watch are rural cop shows and Food TV with some rare cable TV news and only one network out of the options there. There are hundreds of other junk channels that I never watch. There is one game show channel that my in-laws like to watch when they visit. The other channels just have nothing that ever appeals to anyone in the household. We're more than happy to occasionally (like once every 2 years) watch a TV show like Breaking Bad on Netflix years and years after it was a popular event. Would be happy to downgrade to a package that has Food Network and almost nothing else.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I'm the same kind of viewer. In general, I think the bundles appealed to the "I have to watch X" demographic. When in reality there are a large number of people who are perfectly happy to watch something else, if X doesn't happen to be on a channel they subscribe to. There's more quality content nowadays than viewer eyeball-hours. Also, curious question for someone up to date on cable tech. What's the technical ability to deliver a la carte channel subscriptions?
- tw04 9y ago
  >In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. That kind of practice should be banned, and is generally a clear indicator of monopoly status. If they had true competition they would be absolutely slaughtered forcing customers to buy TV packages to get the internet package they want. It's one thing to offer a discount for bundling, it's another thing entirely to force bundling to get certain types of service.
  - gregmac 9y ago
    Even for lower tiers it is sometimes cheaper to bundle -- I suspect one reason is because it allows their "cable TV subscriber" count to be higher. This has implications for the overall outlook of both the industry and cable company, fees for channels the cable company is paid to carry, and cost of advertisements, especially on channels the cable company owns.
ascagnel_ 9y ago
Really what needs to happen is a sensible way to buy shows a la carte, and move away from networks as a whole. I want to watch a single show on a single network (for example, The Walking Dead on AMC). Beyond that one show, everything else is filler to me, designed to justify the price of the network (even within a cable bundle). Shows can be purchased a la carte currently, but the price is still out of whack ($30 for a season on iTunes) for what customers expect.
- ghaff 9y ago
  For me, $30 to buy 20 hours entertainment doesn't strike me as clearly out of whack. It's fairly consistent with the rates to purchase movies for example. I'd prefer to be able to rent for a single view at a lower price, yes. But it seems reasonable for something that I really want to watch.
scarface74 9y ago
What consumers and the writer don't get is that the price won't go down overall. All of the channels will have to charge more to stay in business without the cross subsidization. So you'll still end up paying about the same amount to get the channels you want. https://stratechery.com/2017/the-great-unbundling/ https://stratechery.com/2017/the-great-unbundling/ The only thing that is working is not forcing consumers to pay for expensive sports channels that they don't want. Consumers who love sports will pay the price to get it. People call themselves "cord cutters" but are still paying for services like Sling, Hulu, etc. that are still being delivered by a cord coming into their home. That being said, I gladly play $45 a month for Sling, Hulu, CBS All Access to replace cable, $10/month for Starz during the summer, $10 for Netflix (which I would have even with cable), and $100/year for Amazon Prime for all of the benefits including Amazon Video. All together, that's not much cheaper than the quoted price for cable, but the benefits over cable are: * No extraneous fees -- network access, regional sports, fake government fees (fees that are not charged by the government but the cable company wants you to think they are), HD technology fee, and cable box rental fee (in my case an extra $50 for five additional TVs). All of the fees together would add $80+ to my monthly bill. * "TV Anywhere". The apps will sync up what I watched and what I haven't between devices -- my phone, iPad, Roku sticks, and AppleTV's. I also don't have to deal with the cable company's box. * I can cancel any service without having to deal with a retention department.
- X86BSD 9y ago
  Oh god, I had to +1 you here for dealing with retention departments. They need to die. Like with a vengeance. I already want to cancel. Don't make me want to kill you.
- ethbro 9y ago
  On the other hand, this would allow the market to kill off unsustainable channels. (And hopefully reinforce those that have small but passionate viewers, e.g. Science)
  - scarface74 9y ago
    My contention is that almost all channels outside of sports are unsustainable at market price. I doubt enough people would be willing to pay the full cost for most channels.
cptskippy 9y ago
Your assumption is that everyone watches a lot of shows across networks/packages and that they must watch the latest. We currently watch two shows on FX and one on AMC. Everything else is either on Amazon, Netflix, Youtube or OTA broadcast. In total our household probably watches 20 hrs or less a week of TV from the above sources.
apendleton 9y ago
If you only watch one show on a network, it's easier and cheaper to just buy it. The Americans is the only show I watch on FX at the moment, so I buy that. I can also almost guarantee I wouldn't want any of the content on any of the other channels that would come in a bundle along with FX.

ghaff 9y ago

Consumers like buffets. They also don't want to pay a lot of money. You're already seeing add-on channels for Amazon. I'll grumble but generally I prefer a la carte unless the buffet doesn't carry a significant premium over the a la carte price. There are very few shows that are must see for me and I'll buy those individually.

rhino369 9y ago
But a la cart won't change the average price for the average consumer. The price the cable company pays per station has the viewership figures baked in. They know the average customers doesn't watch most channels. You aren't really paying for them now. Now each customer isn't the average customer. Some will win (because they use very few channels), but some would lose (light users who watch a large variety of channels sporadically).
- ghaff 9y ago
  I was speaking about myself specifically. I watch very little through my cable subscription and basically never turn the TV to "whatever is on." I agree that on average people are unlikely to save a lot though it may change some behaviors to the degree that watching something becomes an affirmative decision to spend money.

rebootthesystem 9y ago

Netflix streaming, in my opinion, has degraded significantly in terms of programming choices. A few years ago when we got the service you could find tons of fantastic movies and tv shows to watch. Today I've switched away in frustration after spending 30+ minutes browsing and searching for something to watch. The menu is mostly filled with crappy 1 to 3 star content. You can't even find good movies from the 80's and 90's. Sure, maybe a few here and there but, for the most part the experience is an exercise in futility. My kids are watching a Spanish kid's show to improve their language understanding. They are 60 episodes into a 260 episode show. When they are done I think I might cancel Netflix and move on. Here's the criteria: When I find myself browsing regular TV listings to record good movies to watch and endure having to commercial-skip every two minutes to watch them. What that happens. And you actually end-up with a bunch of really good contemporary movies recorded. That's the moment when you realize Netflix, today, has a bad product. And that's already happened multiple times.

Goladus 9y ago
> Netflix streaming, in my opinion, has degraded significantly in terms of programming choices. One exception I'd say is that Netflix Original Programming is getting quite good. Narcos, The Crown, and Stranger Things are all fantastic. But yes, in general their selection of quality 3rd party titles is horrible. It's rare to browse Netflix hoping to find a specific movie and not be disappointed.
- ghaff 9y ago
  They've never been very good for movies on streaming. And, unfortunately, their DVD back catalog is being allowed to degrade as well.
- rebootthesystem 9y ago
  I haven't paid much attention to Netflix originated content. Any more I absolutely dread switching over to Netflix because I know it'll be a 30+ minute exercise in frustration. My wife and older kid ignore it completely. Unless things change I'm cancelling by the end of the year. Amazon Prime seemed a bit better but lately it seems to be filled with the same kind of crud. Bad "B" and below movies. Seriously, who watched this crap? There are thousands of good movies out there. Maybe it's a revenue struggle with the studios, I don't know. The fact that you can't even find "The Marx Brother" or "The Three Stooges" or "Abbott and Costello" on these services might be a clue. In other words, you can't find popular black and white movies that by all accounts should fill these services. Or good 80's, 90's and earlier TV series. Not there. Maybe a few here and there, but not en-masse as they should be. I was looking for Battlestar Galactica the other day. Not the goofy one, the other one with Edward James Olmos. It was there a few years back but no-longer available. My oldest kid wasn't old enough to watch it then but he could now (and it is a good series). Gone. Not sure why.

j-c-hewitt 9y ago

I really strongly disagree. In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. The only networks we watch are rural cop shows and Food TV with some rare cable TV news and only one network out of the options there. There are hundreds of other junk channels that I never watch. There is one game show channel that my in-laws like to watch when they visit. The other channels just have nothing that ever appeals to anyone in the household. We're more than happy to occasionally (like once every 2 years) watch a TV show like Breaking Bad on Netflix years and years after it was a popular event. Would be happy to downgrade to a package that has Food Network and almost nothing else.

ethbro 9y ago
I'm the same kind of viewer. In general, I think the bundles appealed to the "I have to watch X" demographic. When in reality there are a large number of people who are perfectly happy to watch something else, if X doesn't happen to be on a channel they subscribe to. There's more quality content nowadays than viewer eyeball-hours. Also, curious question for someone up to date on cable tech. What's the technical ability to deliver a la carte channel subscriptions?
tw04 9y ago
>In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. That kind of practice should be banned, and is generally a clear indicator of monopoly status. If they had true competition they would be absolutely slaughtered forcing customers to buy TV packages to get the internet package they want. It's one thing to offer a discount for bundling, it's another thing entirely to force bundling to get certain types of service.
- gregmac 9y ago
  Even for lower tiers it is sometimes cheaper to bundle -- I suspect one reason is because it allows their "cable TV subscriber" count to be higher. This has implications for the overall outlook of both the industry and cable company, fees for channels the cable company is paid to carry, and cost of advertisements, especially on channels the cable company owns.

ascagnel_ 9y ago

Really what needs to happen is a sensible way to buy shows a la carte, and move away from networks as a whole. I want to watch a single show on a single network (for example, The Walking Dead on AMC). Beyond that one show, everything else is filler to me, designed to justify the price of the network (even within a cable bundle). Shows can be purchased a la carte currently, but the price is still out of whack ($30 for a season on iTunes) for what customers expect.

ghaff 9y ago
For me, $30 to buy 20 hours entertainment doesn't strike me as clearly out of whack. It's fairly consistent with the rates to purchase movies for example. I'd prefer to be able to rent for a single view at a lower price, yes. But it seems reasonable for something that I really want to watch.

scarface74 9y ago

What consumers and the writer don't get is that the price won't go down overall. All of the channels will have to charge more to stay in business without the cross subsidization. So you'll still end up paying about the same amount to get the channels you want. https://stratechery.com/2017/the-great-unbundling/ https://stratechery.com/2017/the-great-unbundling/ The only thing that is working is not forcing consumers to pay for expensive sports channels that they don't want. Consumers who love sports will pay the price to get it. People call themselves "cord cutters" but are still paying for services like Sling, Hulu, etc. that are still being delivered by a cord coming into their home. That being said, I gladly play $45 a month for Sling, Hulu, CBS All Access to replace cable, $10/month for Starz during the summer, $10 for Netflix (which I would have even with cable), and $100/year for Amazon Prime for all of the benefits including Amazon Video. All together, that's not much cheaper than the quoted price for cable, but the benefits over cable are: * No extraneous fees -- network access, regional sports, fake government fees (fees that are not charged by the government but the cable company wants you to think they are), HD technology fee, and cable box rental fee (in my case an extra $50 for five additional TVs). All of the fees together would add $80+ to my monthly bill. * "TV Anywhere". The apps will sync up what I watched and what I haven't between devices -- my phone, iPad, Roku sticks, and AppleTV's. I also don't have to deal with the cable company's box. * I can cancel any service without having to deal with a retention department.

X86BSD 9y ago
Oh god, I had to +1 you here for dealing with retention departments. They need to die. Like with a vengeance. I already want to cancel. Don't make me want to kill you.
ethbro 9y ago
On the other hand, this would allow the market to kill off unsustainable channels. (And hopefully reinforce those that have small but passionate viewers, e.g. Science)
- scarface74 9y ago
  My contention is that almost all channels outside of sports are unsustainable at market price. I doubt enough people would be willing to pay the full cost for most channels.

cptskippy 9y ago

Your assumption is that everyone watches a lot of shows across networks/packages and that they must watch the latest. We currently watch two shows on FX and one on AMC. Everything else is either on Amazon, Netflix, Youtube or OTA broadcast. In total our household probably watches 20 hrs or less a week of TV from the above sources.

apendleton 9y ago

If you only watch one show on a network, it's easier and cheaper to just buy it. The Americans is the only show I watch on FX at the moment, so I buy that. I can also almost guarantee I wouldn't want any of the content on any of the other channels that would come in a bundle along with FX.