Wow, unlike you to go ad hominem like that. But setting aside your disdain for their choice of content, what do you base the claim "Piracy costs HBO less than 'fixing HBO Go' would" ? The articles we've seen here and elsewhere suggests there is some unmet demand, if we stipulate that a team to 'fix HBO Go' is relatively small [1] then what is the lifetime value of having that content more widely addressable? My intuition suggests it would be higher than the cost of fixing their distribution strategy.
[1] I'm imagining a team of two lawyers and an manager to negotiate providing their content on other services like NetFlix, Hulu, and paid-Youtube distribution. Maybe $550K over 12 months? A $1M?
Whoah, sorry! I didn't realize my comment came across as critical of you. I do harbor some disdain for Game of Thrones (which I pay for, via my subscription to HBO), but then, the first CD I ever owned was Phil Collins "No Jacket Required", so trust me I'm nobody to talk about taste.
The problem with "fixing" HBO Go isn't logistical; it's that the revenue from distributing GoT directly over the Internet would have to offset the revenue (and operational cost savings) HBO achieves by serving its content over pay TV systems, and by serving as the anchor for comparatively pricey recurring-revenue "premium" pay TV subscriptions, and by serving as a cross-subsidized draw for basic cable subscriptions. And it's just unlikely to do that.
Ok, so if I understand your argument, the additional revenue from off-cable sources would be offset significantly by a reduction in cable subscribers? If so it sounds like the newspaper 'trap' where the costs of the printing presses (sunk cost infrastructure) gets a smaller base to amortize over.
I don't know enough (or much at all) about the pricing structure of cable. I've read about the disputes when TNT is suddenly no longer on Dish Network and instead there is a missive about how TNT is being so unreasonable about costs yada yada. But those events have suggested that there is fixed cost per anum that Dish and the Cable companies pay to carry the premium channel's content, and then the content distributor is left to make that money back by squeezing it out of subscribers.
So assuming there isn't a contractual obligation of exclusivity (and in HBO's case they are on all the other things like Direct, Time-Warner, etc) would it be reasonable to assume that they could add the additional outlets without changing their pay-TV structure at all? And if they could, wouldn't that revenue be all accretive to the bottom line?
I agree that a completely re-whacked HBO would have a totally different cost structure, but offering up their original programming to say NetFlix to stream? That seems pretty straight forward.
Well, first, it's not my argument; it's both the conventional argument for the bundled pay TV model, and HBO's explicit argument for why they won't sell you an online-only subscription to HBO Go.
Secondly, the issue isn't that HBO is contractually unable to offer direct HBO Go subscriptions or release-window a la carte access to Game Of Thrones episodes. The issue is that it would be financially irrational of them to do so, because their subscribers would defect to the online offering; they would, in effect, be offering a fire-sale on their most valuable offering.
I don't know how much a single episode of Game Of Thrones would cost if you factored all this into it. It obviously wouldn't cost $2.99. I'd tentatively suggest that it would cost so much that people would pirate it and rationalize doing so by saying "HBO can't reasonably expect people to pay so much for a single online episode of Game Of Thrones; if they just used more reasonable prices, people would stop pirating".
I think you have a good grasp of how the execs at Time Warner Inc. (not TW Cable) see it. One can read the earnings call transcripts on seekingalpha where they all but spell it out.
But, just to make it clear here for Chuck and others (rather than wasting time reading earnings' transcripts):
1) As soon as HBO offers their content via other dist. channels, the cable and satellite companies claim in their negotiations that the content is now worth less and they deserve to pay lower rates.
2) Lots of people pay for HBO without ever watching it (i.e. my parents), simply because they'd rather just pay for the premium package than figure out which channels to subscribe to. They are like non-customer subscribers. HBO et al would not see a dime from these people otherwise.
Also, HBO collects revenue from real subscribers based on the promise of high-quality content down the road. They satisfy this requirement often enough that a huge portion of all cable subscribers automatically upgrade to HBO. An a la carte model would allow those subscribers to wait-and-see; instead of investing effort to get engaged with a show like Treme, they'd sit back and wait for the show's merit to be validated by other people, and opt in only to the shows that were immediately compelling.
Interesting. I should probably clarify that I'm paraphrasing CEO Jeff Bewkes's thoughts given a couple quarters ago; these aren't my own thoughts. It seems like you have found further reasoning on your own which makes sense, and would give greater justifications to the execs to shy away from a la carte offerings. It just makes no business sense with two-tiered distribution and bundling.
Ok, now we're talking. So lets deconstruct this argument a bit (I realize its not "your" argument, it is the offered argument)
"The issue is that it would be financially irrational of them to do so, because their subscribers would defect to the online offering; they would, in effect, be offering a fire-sale on their most valuable offering."
There are three claims embedded in this argument let's break them apart individually.
1] "Users of HBO only subscribe to HBO for the original content."
Let's stipulate that this is a rational market. You've got people who pay for "all" of HBO (which spends most of its air-time showing 'movies' not original content), people who pay for it only for the original content. What is that ratio?
I'll claim that most (aka more than 51% :-) of their subscribers are movie watchers. On Comcast they have 8 channels, HBO, HBO2, HBO Family, HBO Comedy, HBO Signature, HBO Latino, HBO West, and HBO Zone. The bulk of the content is movies. Based on the value proposition "you have to pay for 8 channels at an additional $10/month ($120/year) to get your one original content show." And the fact that boxed sets of the previous year's episodes are offered for $40 - $60. I claim that the majority of HBO's paid subscription is there for the movies, and that they get HBO created content is a 'nice to have' feature.
2] "The number of people who don't subscribe to HBO because they are only interested in one show or perhaps a small number of original shows is quite small."
I don't know that number of course. But one could reason about it if you knew the resale rate of the boxed sets of original content. That is an imperfect indicator since you don't have survey data that says "are you a subscriber to HBO or not?" and you don't know which of their original content shows would continue to hold value past their air date (dramas sure, newsy stuff not so much). If someone knows what the sales rank of those boxed sets are though could get an indication. They are quite popular on bittorrent so clearly there is a demand (I know that isn't really in question)
3] "The original content is the 'most valuable offering' and the revenue generated for that net original content in a two tier model would be significantly less (fire-sale) than their current revenue."
My claim is that the number of people who subscribe to HBO just for the original content is quite low (its not a good value) thus offering the original content through another channel would not change the value proposition to a material number of current subscribers.
But capturing the revenue from people who would subscribe to a service that offered the original content would increase their bottom line.
I am really surprised they haven't A/B tested this much. Put an original series out there and offer it through a third party service as well using a modified release-window model (say a week).
HBO is subsidized by the price of the entire cable bill. There are people who get cable in large part because they want access to HBO; HBO captures a portion of that revenue too.
HBO has stated directly that they would lose money if they offered a la carte access to their content. Recurring revenue is an extremely powerful thing; if you have a business model that works that drives recurring revenue, you stick with it.
HBO's business model works extraordinarily well; they have almost 30 million subscribers.
Ok, I think you've accurately communicated HBO's reasoning for thinking this would be a bad idea. I'm not persuaded by their argument. For the reasons that I enumerated.
I completely accept that they wouldn't be persuaded by mine either if that helps. I firmly believe however that someone will adopt this sort of model and then we'll have an empirical example to talk about.
Your second paragraph here is actually the root of my argument as well! I agree strongly. Content is inevitably going to be product for the direct Internet market, and that model will eventually supplant the pay TV model.
HBO is itself effectively just a middleman (at least for most of the content we care about). Maybe we should stop talking about what HBO should do, and start talking about what companies like Blown Deadline (David Simon's production company) should do. Again, my sense is that many more potential viable productions exist than are greenlit by AMC, FX, HBO, and Showtime.
[1] I'm imagining a team of two lawyers and an manager to negotiate providing their content on other services like NetFlix, Hulu, and paid-Youtube distribution. Maybe $550K over 12 months? A $1M?