DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Really bad.
This would be really bad in the medium to long term. Something close to the ubiquitous 80/20 rule applies, with 80% of the people only ever watching 20% of the available channels. Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. |
|
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
 ·Optimum Voice
 ·Optimum Online
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by DMS1  :Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. They could of course provide content worth watching. |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| reply to sharksfan3
said by sharksfan3 :said by DMS1 :Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. They could of course provide content worth watching. My point exactly - they do provide content worth watching for at least some people. Take for example Ovation, which provides arts and culture programming. Not everyone's cup of tea, but a channel I watch regularly. I fear it would be one of the first to go. |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| reply to sharksfan3
Two words
Niche Markets
I do not care how good content is I not going to watch the Golf Channel but my hypothetical neighbor would be glued to the channel. At the same time he has no interest in Sci-FI but I do. a la carte will dumb down TV to the lowest common denominator. |
|
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14
1 edit | reply to DMS1
So you expect that everyone else should subsidize your more -ahem- eclectic tastes? I hope you send money for your NPR habit to supplement the taxes we send to CPB to subsidize Big Bird ($400M for 2008, up 33% in 8 years).
I have no problem with packages of channels rather than true ala carte, but the deal now (at least on DirectTV) is a $30 package aimed squarely at the Bible Thumpers, and then $50 for a 140+ channels, 30-40% of which are XM radio. I know that they can manage different packages, because I have an older package that is no longer offered. (I have no idea what the differences are, but they seem to manage it OK.)
So why not a Pick30 with local channels for $30 package? Make ESPN cost an extra $5 if that's what Disney wants for it - an awful lot of folks would pay it. And maybe they can find someone who wants XM Suite 62 and Galavision - whatever they are.
Or maybe not. Nobody said being an artist would be easy... |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to Chuckles
Your comment is really stupid if you take the time to think about it.
It isnt like he's saying "any channel I dont watch should go off the air" he's saying "any channel NO ONE watches should go off the air" and logically, if there is a channel that no one watches, it should change formats to appeal to more people or be replaced, otherwise millions of dollars are being wasted to appease 10 peoples horrible taste (as opposed to millions of peoples horrible taste i suppose, but still). |
|
BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | I'd have to agree that Chuckles posted an amazingly stupid question. Yes, consumers *should* be the ones who decide what's worth watching. What is wrong with you? |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to DMS1
Market forces should determine what channels are retained and what channels are canceled due to a very small segment of the market place ordering these channels.
A-la-carte is the wave of the future. We here find ourselves only viewing less then six channels at most, why pay for all of those channels we will never watch? |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to DMS1
I am sure that there might be a channel or two that I might watch that would go away due to a lack of interest by the market (viewers) so be it. Why should the rest of us subsidize your feel good channel? I've been saying for a long time that a large majority of the channels on the satellite (DirecTV) have a fairly small audience if any at all and should either be switched to programming that a majority of people would enjoy or removed entirely. A quick poll at work provided some interesting data, over 90% (around 25 people) indicated that they only watch a hand full of channels on their cable or satellite systems. Most (80%) also replied that they favor the a-la-carte business model. Let the free market place determine what are viable channels and what channels are financial losers. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to Richard B
There is a huge plethora of channels dedicated to over the air selling (marketing)such as QVC and similar types, food channels, save the world/animal/green planet channels and several channels offering tv shows that never were able to garner an audience when first broadcast, a majority of these channels have a very small viewer ship, once again why keep channels that most people do not enjoy watching? If we go to the a-la-carte business model the major TV content providers will be able to asses the data and determine which channels do not enjoy an audience. One final thought just because other people might not enjoy watching some off the wall channel you enjoy does not mean we are being dumbed down. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to DMS1
said by DMS1 :I fear it would be one of the first to go. Oh it would be.
Convert to watching Football, Nascar, and Wrestling, and you'll be a happy man.
 |
|
ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to sharksfan3
This is a billing nightmare to the service providers and a few companies own most of the cable channels. So if you want MTV you get BET too, because it's owned by the same big media conglomerate(Viacom).....Is this a great country or what ?? |
|
eric89074
join:2004-08-13
Henderson, NV | reply to DMS1
The programmers and cable companies would find a way to keep getting the money they're used to through jacked up prices for channels, increased equipment costs, and extra fees. Best case scenario we'd save a few bucks a month. |
|
tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA
| reply to stevephl
Let those marketing channels be FREE since they are getting revenue from sales. If they want to sell to us, allow them to be part of a FREE tier. The more popular channels can be a-la-carte. I can then pay $30 and get some free public interest, marketing, viewer funded (like PBS) channels in addition to my maybe 30 picked channels. |
|
chris231989
join:2006-02-12
Joplin, MO
clubs:
| reply to Chuckles
shouldn't we the consumers be the ones deciding whats worth watching anyways??? it's our money we're working hard for, handing over to the cable co's. if those channels aren't worth paying for individually why would they be any more worth buying in a bundle? |
|
Volcano Joe
@motive.com | reply to Chuckles
Are you kidding? My interest in ESPN shouldn't subsidize your wanting to watch super obscure programming. If those networks have a following, it will show up as subscribers in an a-la-carte model. Otherwise it will go away. |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | reply to james
I believe channels are on the air because someone is watching them. Someone's horrible taste could be you.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | reply to BIGHUSKER
I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3.
Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." |
|
Mospaw
D O N E
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
The Pacific
·Cox HSI
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
| reply to Volcano Joe
Note: I'm pulling the numbers below out of the air, in order to make a point. They don't represent anything but hypotheticals.
Likewise, my interest in obscure programming shouldn't subsidize ESPN, in which I have zero interest.
ESPN might even be profitable on its own and be a freebie or very low cost in an a la carte lineup. Likewise, something a bit more obscure, call it the "Obscurity Channel" will have a smaller audience, and require maybe a dollar or two for each subscriber. I'm fine with that. I'd rather get rid of a bunch of crap channels I'll NEVER look that cost 10 cents a month and get one or two I do want that cost many times more.
Heck, you might even get some channels that pay you a tiny bit to have them, like QVC, HSN, etc.
I'm totally for this and hope it happens.
That way I can say goodbye to probably 30 channels for good AND not have to pay for them.  |
|
