Written by Chris Albrecht
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 9:45 PM PT

 

Is a la Carte Cable a Sucker’s Bet?

Being able to pick and choose which cable channels you want instead of having them all bundled into one package would bring “economic ruin,” according to recent research from Yankee Group. But as online video grows, the point may already be moot.

“A la carte” pricing for cable has been a hotly-debated topic since… well, since people first looked at their cable bill and cursed their provider. Yankee says the average cable subscriber pays $60 a month for basic cable, and Nielsen Media Research said that the average cable subscriber pays for 85 channels and only watches 16.

While the siren song of sticking it to the cable company via a la carte is tempting, Yankee predicts switching to such pricing would have disastrous immediate effects including:

  • Fewer channels: the loss of carriage fees for programmers would translate into niche networks losing revenue and subscribers, while forcing surviving networks to charge individuals more to subscribe to their channels.
  • Less ad revenue: with just the channels you want, there are fewer casual viewers aimlessly flipping through the dial. Fewer viewers results in fewer ad dollars. Networks that survived the shakeout could charge more, though.
  • Economic impact: fewer networks and fewer TV ads means fewer jobs which would be felt throughout the economy.

(via Research Recap)

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has come out in favor of a la carte cable pricing, saying it would assist minorities. But his fellow FCC member Robert McDowell has said that the commission would need to be “very, very careful” on that issue. McDowell points out that with the online video boom, consumers already have more choices than ever for watching content.

Of course, proping up cable companies and their dying business models isn’t a good reason to keep a la carte around. But go ahead, keep fighting; we’ll be over here watching Hulu.

 

Sphere
Topic: Legal & Regulatory
« Previous Post Next Post »

Comments & Trackbacks

  1. A TV channel is just a playlist of video that you can’t control. Non-live channels will be dead in 5-10 years. RIP appointment TV.

    Jon Smirl on March 31st, 2008 at 10:15 am - Permalink

  2. I doubt we’ll see a la carte from cable or satellite. However, with the rapid growth in internet television perhaps those fat package prices will come down to earth. The main problem is that the cable and satellite companies also own (and control) a lot of the content.

    rsslivetv on March 31st, 2008 at 11:10 am - Permalink

  3. Yeah, the issue of a la carte carries great emotional resonance on a number of fronts (as I noted a few months ago). This Joe Nocera column from last November did a good job of breaking down the flaws in a mandatory a la carte system. I feel the pain for those paying cable bills, but the issue isn’t how many channels you don’t watch, it’s what’s the most efficient way to ensure you can see the channels you want to watch. You probably don’t watch the same group of channels as your spouse, your kids, your neighbors. The best bet is to deliver a diverse set of choices, so that you can pick what you want.

    CableTechTalk on April 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm - Permalink

  4. [...] A La Carte Cable is a Sucker’s Bet Chris Albrecht at NewTeeVee asks whether a la carte pricing for cable is a sucker’s bet: “A la carte” pricing for cable has been a hotly-debated topic since… well, since people [...]

    Yes, A La Carte Cable is a Sucker’s Bet « Short Nerd Chief on April 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm - Permalink

  5. [...] over-the-air-transmissions. And we’re on board with the Senator that à la carte cable is a sucker’s bet. But given revelations that Comcast blocked BitTorrent traffic and is now angling to throttle heavy [...]

    Tubin’! Sen. Stevens Back on Net Neutrality « NewTeeVee on April 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm - Permalink

Leave a reply








Safari hates me

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have gotten caught in our trusty (but occasionally overly ambitious) spam filter. Please drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.