3 ms·

Unbundling is a stop-gap solution. The problem isn't actually as distilled as people not wanting certain channels. At this point, the problem is that people act

Unbundling is a stop-gap solution. The problem isn't actually as distilled as people not wanting certain channels. At this point, the problem is that people actively want only certain programs. This is where services like Amazon's can shine. I don't want AMC, I want breaking bad, mad men, or walking dead. Some hardcore sports fans probably want ESPN; but my guess is that more fans want all of ESPN's coverage of a particular league(s). Unbundling needs to be the first step towards per program subscriptions. Would I agree to pay $10/mn for AMC? Absolutely not, they air a bunch of crap programs that I would never watch. Would I pay $25 each for seasons of the shows I actualy want to watch, you bet.

talmand 13y ago
It seems like I keep saying this in this thread, and others, but Amazon already meets this demand. I feel I must keep repeating it because it seems so many don't realize this. I don't pay for cable TV but I watch the latest seasons of Breaking Bad and Walking Dead on Amazon. The only catch is I see them a day after broadcast. $25 for each season? More like $13-$15 per season. And I can watch them again anytime I want. $10 a month for AMC? Screw that, I already get a better deal on their shows I want right now, TODAY. EDIT: I just looked it up; I paid $13.99 for Season 5 of Breaking Bad on Amazon. Under the $10 a month for AMC idea, assuming I only wanted this one show, it would cost me about $50 based on aired episodes and expected air dates of the final episodes. I did watch the third season of Walking Dead through Amazon as well but it has $0 for my order on that for some reason, but it lists for $26.99 currently. Walking Dead also broadcasted over five months but did not overlap with Breaking Bad. For those two shows alone at $10 a month would have cost me around $100, I got them both for $40.98. Since I do not watch any other AMC shows, even though I could watch some of them on Netflix, I think I came out ahead. I agree with you, unbundling is not the future the cable companies are fighting. They are fighting on-demand viewing. The only thing I need cable companies for is the bandwidth to watch what I want when I want. Their arguments to the contrary fall on deaf ears. Are there problems with this? Sure, I can't watch some shows because they aren't available as season passes on Amazon so I may have to wait for them to appear later. If the show never appears as on-demand? Well, too bad for them because my money just went elsewhere. There are enough quality choices out there that I just don't care. At this point, there's very little cable TV can do to convince me to return to paying subscription fees for a hundred channels I don't want. The only way I see it is if they somehow get Netflix and Amazon Instant to be made illegal. Engage in the future, cut the cord.
danielweber 13y ago
At this point, the problem is that people actively want only certain programs. For the vast majority of people, this isn't true. It's not even true for most people who insist they want a la carte. People hate being nickled-and-dimed. Three quarters of the cell phone market are people paying more for a bundle so they don't have to worry about how much each call to grandma costs them even though they end up paying more than they would if they kept careful track of their minutes and only bought what they needed. People want to be able to flip to Mad Men without clicking on the "Buy Now" button.
- imperialWicket 13y ago
  I'll grant that there's a healthy amount of assumption in that statement, but I think it's pretty safe in the context of many of the more expensive channels. The channels where someone just wants a channel qua channel tend not to be that expensive (Network channels, Cable non-premium channels). The more costly channels are the channels that offer premium content. I think it's safe to say that most users don't want an HBO subscription so that they can watch whatever HBO 2 happens to be playing this evening. They want some premium channel, or a couple particular movies. There is definite merit to the concept of just flipping to a show and not having to buy it. For the people who are concerned about this, or concerned about watching episodes the moment they air in a given timezone - a bundle from the current implementation seems appropriate.

talmand 13y ago

It seems like I keep saying this in this thread, and others, but Amazon already meets this demand. I feel I must keep repeating it because it seems so many don't realize this. I don't pay for cable TV but I watch the latest seasons of Breaking Bad and Walking Dead on Amazon. The only catch is I see them a day after broadcast. $25 for each season? More like $13-$15 per season. And I can watch them again anytime I want. $10 a month for AMC? Screw that, I already get a better deal on their shows I want right now, TODAY. EDIT: I just looked it up; I paid $13.99 for Season 5 of Breaking Bad on Amazon. Under the $10 a month for AMC idea, assuming I only wanted this one show, it would cost me about $50 based on aired episodes and expected air dates of the final episodes. I did watch the third season of Walking Dead through Amazon as well but it has $0 for my order on that for some reason, but it lists for $26.99 currently. Walking Dead also broadcasted over five months but did not overlap with Breaking Bad. For those two shows alone at $10 a month would have cost me around $100, I got them both for $40.98. Since I do not watch any other AMC shows, even though I could watch some of them on Netflix, I think I came out ahead. I agree with you, unbundling is not the future the cable companies are fighting. They are fighting on-demand viewing. The only thing I need cable companies for is the bandwidth to watch what I want when I want. Their arguments to the contrary fall on deaf ears. Are there problems with this? Sure, I can't watch some shows because they aren't available as season passes on Amazon so I may have to wait for them to appear later. If the show never appears as on-demand? Well, too bad for them because my money just went elsewhere. There are enough quality choices out there that I just don't care. At this point, there's very little cable TV can do to convince me to return to paying subscription fees for a hundred channels I don't want. The only way I see it is if they somehow get Netflix and Amazon Instant to be made illegal. Engage in the future, cut the cord.

danielweber 13y ago

At this point, the problem is that people actively want only certain programs. For the vast majority of people, this isn't true. It's not even true for most people who insist they want a la carte. People hate being nickled-and-dimed. Three quarters of the cell phone market are people paying more for a bundle so they don't have to worry about how much each call to grandma costs them even though they end up paying more than they would if they kept careful track of their minutes and only bought what they needed. People want to be able to flip to Mad Men without clicking on the "Buy Now" button.

imperialWicket 13y ago
I'll grant that there's a healthy amount of assumption in that statement, but I think it's pretty safe in the context of many of the more expensive channels. The channels where someone just wants a channel qua channel tend not to be that expensive (Network channels, Cable non-premium channels). The more costly channels are the channels that offer premium content. I think it's safe to say that most users don't want an HBO subscription so that they can watch whatever HBO 2 happens to be playing this evening. They want some premium channel, or a couple particular movies. There is definite merit to the concept of just flipping to a show and not having to buy it. For the people who are concerned about this, or concerned about watching episodes the moment they air in a given timezone - a bundle from the current implementation seems appropriate.