
À La Carte Television finally makes financial sense for TV networks - webtvwire
https://ottsquared.com/road-to-a-la-carte-tv-fa455b22dafe
======
rhino369
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
ethbro
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
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.

------
AndrewKemendo
Honestly, is it that hard to make a legal version of
PopcornTime/Solarmovie/Putlocker? I would have to assume that it must be given
the state of things.

I'm probably a terrible example here because I don't have a TV, but I pay for
the cable bundle with my internet.

Seems like what consumers want is to be able to go onto any of their devices,
search for what they want to see and then watch it. Probably huge hurdles
legally and from the studios.

~~~
mhuffman
> Honestly, is it that hard to make a legal version of
> PopcornTime/Solarmovie/Putlocker?

Yes! I have some experience in this industry and it is pretty much impossible.
Every level of the industry has long-standing practices with "optimized"
expected fees. You have distribution package deals, release windows, release
regions, etc. Any sense of new value is fought over like seagulls for potato
chips and giving up a single penny is worth torpedoing contracts.

Netflix had the best chance of anyone, but even they could not do it. The
price to make this software (likely a hardware box with DRM) available would
be not be financially viable. I would estimate in the high hundreds per month,
or in the low hundreds if they could limit what you watch and how much.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Do you think it would be possible if you bootstrapped something where you have
a consistent userbase and then started paying creators based on the revenue
you get from viewers/advertisers?

So lets say that popcorn time wanted to go legit. I don't know how many
viewers they have but I would assume it's in the millions monthly. I guess
they would have to be the sole source of viewership for production studios to
agree to license to them, and even then they would have to fight other
distributors for exclusivity.

So it seems the only way to get there is if you somehow get 100M daily viewers
then you could have a compelling case to make for licensing.

~~~
mhuffman
> So it seems the only way to get there is if you somehow get 100M daily
> viewers then you could have a compelling case to make for licensing.

Even then there is friction in the system. Look at some of the enormous
distribution platforms for music like itunes and spotify. Some people still
refuse to deal with them.

It is pretty hopeless. I think the difficulty is why ycombinator has been
seeking disruption in the entertainment industry for so long.

------
mtanski
Haven't had cable TV in as long as I've lived on my own (more then a decade).
First off, I don't get a whole lot of value from it to justify the price.
Second, I don't have time to arrange my schedule around shows I like ...
frankly if it's not on demand on my schedule I don't watch it. Yeah, I could
DVR it... but it's 2017 and the vendor should just do it for me.

Also, I'm unwilling to subsidize a handful of folks who watch sports channels
(who collect the biggest fees) largely driven by the NFL. Doesn't help that I
find NFL as an organization somewhat despicable too.

I've stuck with Netflix for the occasional movies / TV shows. I don't mind
seeing them late as I don't want to wait artificially for next weeks EP
(around my schedule not theirs). Occasionally when it took a while to get to
Netflix/Amazon I bought a season and was happier for not having to be bother
with OTA scheduling.

------
larrik
Personally, I don't normally need _any_ channels, I need _shows_. Frankly, if
I didn't catch it with the DVR, then On-Demand is crap because of the "you
can't fast forward!" crap. Then you pause it too long and can't fast forward
at all to get back to where you were, all because of ads.

~~~
bryanlarsen
For me, Apple's Season Pass was definitely the best model for TV show viewing.
You'd think it would be win-win:

\- a win for consumers because they only pay for the shows they want to watch

\- a win for producers because they get a lot more dollars per viewer than
they get now

But of course, that model has been a massive failure. Consumers panned it
because it seemed expensive, and of course there are many networks/shows that
aren't there. Maybe the networks would have come if the model was successful,
but I doubt that Netflix would ever have...

~~~
narrowrail
Couching the discussion as a la carte channels instead of a la carte shows is
some kind of jedi mind trick by studio execs.

Apple Season Pass should be like $3/season, not $5/episode.

Edit: Netflix didn't negotiate certain seasons or episodes of Breaking Bad,
nor did it negotiate all of AMC's content. Netflix negotiated rights to
specific shows.

~~~
bryanlarsen
$35 per show per season seems very fair to me. I currently pay about $100 per
month for cable, Netflix and HBO. We watch far fewer than 36 shows so we're
currently paying more than $35 per.

------
ohazi
Just sell me your biggest, dumbest pipe and then fuck off.

I want nothing to do with any of the TV that they sell, but because the cable
companies have gotten used to selling fatter bundles, the average price goes
up.

And the price of "internet only" service goes up too, so that their stupidly
expensive TV packages look reasonable. It's such a goddamn racket.

~~~
dboreham
People spent $$$ getting MBAs so they can fight you tooth and nail to do the
exact opposite.

------
NewSystems
It's great! No 80-90 a month, now it's 10-20.

Personally I like CBS All Access with Hulu, but sometimes I drop Hulu to get
Netflix.

There are 3 or 4 options for lots more channels at 30-40/month. Streaming
seems like a good deal so far.

~~~
Consultant32452
Don't forget Amazon Prime. The content isn't that great, so I wouldn't go out
of my way to get Prime for the streaming, but it's "free" with the shipping
which tons of people use.

------
rch
This might be good news for some, but I've moved on. I can't imagine what
would compel me watch cable again. Same for listening to the radio...

Actually, I wish Pandora would take over radio stations and use their
subscribers' driving patterns to optimize playlists. It'd be really
interesting to hear a song on the radio that I'd actually choose to listen to,
particularly if I was driving through Kansas.

------
Animats
ESPN has the worst problem. Sports viewing is in decline, and they overpaid
for some big-name sports for years into the future. If packages don't include
ESPN, they're toast.

~~~
samtho
IMO, ESPN, and related networks, should be its own streaming sports service.
Where you can stream live ESPN exclusive stuff, watch teams from out of your
viewing area that local channels provide, and watch highlights of past games.

I don't watch sports so I might be completely off the mark, but it seems like
a form of entertainment people would gladly pay for (people pay tons for TV
packages that include sports networks so they can keep up).

------
andrewmcwatters
Finally makes sense when no one wants television anymore, period. How
convenient.

