4 ms·

Packages exist because its win win for everyone. People hate them because they think they can split them apart and pay proportionally for the channels they wan

by treis 4y ago

Packages exist because its win win for everyone. People hate them because they think they can split them apart and pay proportionally for the channels they want. But that's not how it works.

noSyncCloud 4y ago
Cable packages are a win-win for everyone? This is going to be breaking news for the tens of millions of people who've dropped cable; please elaborate.
- PraetorianGourd 4y ago
  “Channels” are not uniformly priced. Some, like ESPN, are very expensive for the cable providers while others are cheap. But, those expensive (and popular) channels subsidizes smaller or niche channels.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- treis 4y ago
  Because packages allow both sides to get the long tail of revenue/content. If it's individual channels with a price $X then those not willing to pay X lose the content and the channel loses the revenue. To make up for the missing tail each channel will have to be priced higher individually than their slice of the package revenue.
  - spuz 4y ago
    You're assuming the only alternative is a pay per channel model. How about a Spotify-like all-you-can-eat model where providers actually compete on what they actually have control over such as user experience, quality and customer support?
blibble 4y ago
can you explain how paying for hundreds of channels I don't want is a win for me?
- winstonewert 4y ago
  Essentially, you are paying for the few channels that you actually want and the hundred of other channels are being provided for free. It's a win because you get free channels even if you don't watch them. The thing is that there is essentially zero cost to providing channels to you that you are not watching. There are costs to sending the signals to your house but that doesn't increase based on how many channels you have access to. There also costs to producing content, but those costs are independent of the number of viewers. Add to that the fact these channels typically have advertising which is a good chunk of revenue, they aren't paid for by your cable service fees. The result is that the costs involved don't correspond simply a cost per user per available channel. Consequently, it doesn't make sense to charge users that way.
  - blibble 4y ago
    > It's a win because you get free channels even if you don't watch them. how is it a win if I don't watch them?
    - winstonewert 4y ago
      Well, I'd say having the option to watch is a win because options are good. But maybe you don't see it that way. Fine. Perhaps the availability of these other channels is neutral. I think they key point is that it's not a loss.
fineIllregister 4y ago
I feel like streaming has shown it can work like that, at least somewhat. The sports channels (ESPN, etc) are the most expensive but were bundled with anything more than the most basic package. With streaming they're split out. The Disney bundle example in the article shows you can save by going a la carte.
neogodless 4y ago
Packages can be a win-win, particularly if they are optional. If you want more than one thing, and paying for both together in a package saves you money, or is a worthwhile convenience for the price, it's a win-win. If you don't want all the things in a package, and the price is more than you'd pay for the things you want, it's not a win for the consumer.
dawnerd 4y ago
Look, if a channel can’t sustain itself without the subsidies from a bundle, it shouldn’t exist.
darth_avocado 4y ago
Packages are never a win win. The reason they are not is because they are designed to get you to pay more. Take an example of cars. Any user buying a new car would almost always pay for all the safety features if a “safety bundle” was available that had all the safety features. Instead they split apart all the features into different bundles along with luxury features to make you buy stuff that you don’t care about. Want blind spot detection? Great we have our pro bundle that gives you that with seat heating (driver only btw) and all weather mats. Want collision warning? Here’s our pro plus that gets you that with heated steering and seat heating for front passenger. Cable bundles were exactly that. After spending $200/month, I still couldn’t watch all the football games from my couch and that was a travesty. But I did have 200+ Spanish channels. So it was a win win right?
Salgat 4y ago
Packages would be fine if they standardized an API and let me aggregate all my streaming services under a single client of my choice. Imagine if you were required to have half a dozen cable boxes for all your different cable packages. Remember, pirating is a problem of convenience, not price. As of now the fracturing accross different platforms and partial availability is what's stopping streaming from having universal adoption.
Vvector 4y ago
Wrong. Everyone loses when I refuse to pay $20 for a package when I only want one channel? I realize I can't pay $1 per channel (20 channels for $20), but I'd be willing to pay $5.

by treis 4y ago

Packages exist because its win win for everyone. People hate them because they think they can split them apart and pay proportionally for the channels they want. But that's not how it works.

noSyncCloud 4y ago

Cable packages are a win-win for everyone? This is going to be breaking news for the tens of millions of people who've dropped cable; please elaborate.

PraetorianGourd 4y ago
“Channels” are not uniformly priced. Some, like ESPN, are very expensive for the cable providers while others are cheap. But, those expensive (and popular) channels subsidizes smaller or niche channels.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
treis 4y ago
Because packages allow both sides to get the long tail of revenue/content. If it's individual channels with a price $X then those not willing to pay X lose the content and the channel loses the revenue. To make up for the missing tail each channel will have to be priced higher individually than their slice of the package revenue.
- spuz 4y ago
  You're assuming the only alternative is a pay per channel model. How about a Spotify-like all-you-can-eat model where providers actually compete on what they actually have control over such as user experience, quality and customer support?

blibble 4y ago

can you explain how paying for hundreds of channels I don't want is a win for me?

winstonewert 4y ago
Essentially, you are paying for the few channels that you actually want and the hundred of other channels are being provided for free. It's a win because you get free channels even if you don't watch them. The thing is that there is essentially zero cost to providing channels to you that you are not watching. There are costs to sending the signals to your house but that doesn't increase based on how many channels you have access to. There also costs to producing content, but those costs are independent of the number of viewers. Add to that the fact these channels typically have advertising which is a good chunk of revenue, they aren't paid for by your cable service fees. The result is that the costs involved don't correspond simply a cost per user per available channel. Consequently, it doesn't make sense to charge users that way.
- blibble 4y ago
  > It's a win because you get free channels even if you don't watch them. how is it a win if I don't watch them?
  - winstonewert 4y ago
    Well, I'd say having the option to watch is a win because options are good. But maybe you don't see it that way. Fine. Perhaps the availability of these other channels is neutral. I think they key point is that it's not a loss.

fineIllregister 4y ago

I feel like streaming has shown it can work like that, at least somewhat. The sports channels (ESPN, etc) are the most expensive but were bundled with anything more than the most basic package. With streaming they're split out. The Disney bundle example in the article shows you can save by going a la carte.

neogodless 4y ago

Packages can be a win-win, particularly if they are optional. If you want more than one thing, and paying for both together in a package saves you money, or is a worthwhile convenience for the price, it's a win-win. If you don't want all the things in a package, and the price is more than you'd pay for the things you want, it's not a win for the consumer.

dawnerd 4y ago

Look, if a channel can’t sustain itself without the subsidies from a bundle, it shouldn’t exist.

darth_avocado 4y ago

Packages are never a win win. The reason they are not is because they are designed to get you to pay more. Take an example of cars. Any user buying a new car would almost always pay for all the safety features if a “safety bundle” was available that had all the safety features. Instead they split apart all the features into different bundles along with luxury features to make you buy stuff that you don’t care about. Want blind spot detection? Great we have our pro bundle that gives you that with seat heating (driver only btw) and all weather mats. Want collision warning? Here’s our pro plus that gets you that with heated steering and seat heating for front passenger. Cable bundles were exactly that. After spending $200/month, I still couldn’t watch all the football games from my couch and that was a travesty. But I did have 200+ Spanish channels. So it was a win win right?

Salgat 4y ago

Packages would be fine if they standardized an API and let me aggregate all my streaming services under a single client of my choice. Imagine if you were required to have half a dozen cable boxes for all your different cable packages. Remember, pirating is a problem of convenience, not price. As of now the fracturing accross different platforms and partial availability is what's stopping streaming from having universal adoption.

Vvector 4y ago

Wrong. Everyone loses when I refuse to pay $20 for a package when I only want one channel? I realize I can't pay $1 per channel (20 channels for $20), but I'd be willing to pay $5.