ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | reply to b10010011
Re: A la carte will end up with less choice Your thinking is based on a paradigm developed in 1963.
People used to be able to get everything at Sears. Then specialization arrived and Sears is nearly a has been. Why? a la carte shopping. Choices came through Regional Malls, Target, Wal-Mart and others who niched and specialized.
People used to get everything at malls. The anchors subsidized the space costs of the food courts and kiosks. Then retail strip malls came and now regional malls are considered a less than optimal way for retail to market. Why? a la carte retail destinations.
People used to get technology at Radio Shack. Battery sales subsidized development of other products. Now people go to big box stores to get batteries. Radio Shack doesn't sell high tech anymore. Why? a la carte specialization.
History has shown that when a market is allowed to segment and specialize and promote "a la carte" access, prices drop and selection actually increases.
Those channels that "no one watches" usually are owned by a larger media entity that enforce carriage thru a "must carry" provision in their contracts.
Disney is the worst abuser of the 'must carry' provision by forcing ESPN entities in the basic packages. Turner is second worse. TNT, Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content.
ESPN signs new NFL deal? Next year, ESPN rates go up. TNT carries NBA basketball? Next year the rates go up.
What galls me the most in this movement to "pay to see" is that they all still carry commercials. Cable costs used to purely cover the cost of carriage plus any charges for premium content. Now, EVERYTHING is considered a premium content and yet the commercials are getting as bad as free broadcast.
Bring on "a la carte" and bring it on quickly. Break up these monolithic ways of carrying content. Let me choose. |
|
|
|
 qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by ricep5: Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content. You sure you don't mean TCM (Turner Classic Movies)? Cause if you do, that and the Cartoon Network are two of the best channels on TV. TCM has NO commercials. And if you consider those two channels a "waste" of some sort, well then I think you are flat wrong.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | said by qdemn7:said by ricep5: Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content. You sure you don't mean TCM (Turner Classic Movies)? Cause if you do, that and the Cartoon Network are two of the best channels on TV. TCM has NO commercials. And if you consider those two channels a "waste" of some sort, well then I think you are flat wrong. I meant TCM, not TMC. Yes, I know TCM has no commercials, however its existence is solely based on the Turner Broadcasting must carry contract. I never implied they were a waste, I was saying I don't have choice in having it (or not) on my cable plan. 'a la carte' would establish its true market value.
As a side note, profits from TBS showing Braves baseball (and syndicated shows) nationally subsidizes TCM. If TCM was forced into 'a la carte' selection, I doubt it would continue to be commercial free. |
|
qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by ricep5:As a side note, profits from TBS showing Braves baseball (and syndicated shows) nationally subsidizes TCM. If TCM was forced into 'a la carte' selection, I doubt it would continue to be commercial free. Then on that basis alone I'm opposed to a la carte.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
