[MCIBUS]

With the recent issue with HD Net and possible other channels being dropped, I 'd though I'd start a thread on cost.

How much is tio much?

I keep on hearing people complaining about channels being packaged, with channels they don't want to pay for.

Fine

Lets say the Channels & providers come up with a deal to sell each channel by itself, but the catch is they don't sell each channrel for $2 but for $7 for SD & $10 for HD each.

I'll bet you anything that the majority of subs out including memebers here wouldn't go for that and rather go back to the old system.

The catch here is(and not to be rude or disrespectful to anyone here) everyone Talks The Talks, but can they Walk The Walk? In that I mean everyone says they want to pay for channels they want but are you wiolling to pay the price even if it means $7 SD/Channel & $10 HD/channel?

I'm willing to stake my life on that the majority of you won't or wouldn't pay that much for each channel.

Now this just my opionb/view on the who;e issue with channels & packaging?

 

[Fonceur]

Considering that the A la carte channels for Videotron and Bell in Quebec are less than $2 each (except for movies/porn), I don't see why you want to discuss paying $7 to $10 per channel...

 

[Dalek Prime]

Fine

Lets say the Channels & providers come up with a deal to sell each channel by itself, but the catch is they don't sell each channrel for $2 but for $7 for SD & $10 for HD each.

Well, fine, if they were actually 'selling' the whole channel, I'd be willing to spring for it, whether $2, $10 or $100...

I think your premise is loaded, unless you can justify the figures you are using. ie. What justifies the $7, $10, or even the $2 figure you base your premise on?

PS. Fonceur, I concur.

 

[MCIBUS]

Simple I'm suggesting that people are willing to pay $2 or so $ for a channel but when suddenly you now have to pay $7SD/channel& $10 HD/channel this includes $10 for ABC HD, $10 for CBS HD and so on TSN HD $10 , $10 TSN2 HD I willing to bet you anything people won't pay that because there bill will be over $100 if you just had 10 HD channels.

The point I'm trying to make is people keep on say they want choice but how far are they willing to go to get that choice.

The present system is cheap(depending on how you look at it) but to get everything you have presently and assuming you can get all those channels in HD are you willing to pay the price.

I say NO because there is a certain price limit people are willing to pay.

I pay over $250/month for TV that VIP Rogers & the largest package with Dish Network, but because the way the pay set up is set up presently its cheaper. For me to get the same channels I have presently and assuming they where all in HD I'd be paying over $1000/month for TV.

Thats the point I'm trying to make, how much is to much.

Now grant you I don't know if the providers would charge that much, thats anyones guess but the reason I think the price presently is so cheap per channel is because some are packaged in packages and the channel is almost guaranteed to get a certain price. Take away that packaging and there revenue drops.

As for Quebec not all places are like that, there for the channels still make money from the rest of Canada.



Will this ever happen ? I dought it.

 

[Dalek Prime]

MCIBUS, I can make the opposite point by pricing the package system ridiculously out of reach for most, which is what you're doing per channel.

 

[MCIBUS]

True, but like I said will this ever happen, probaly not.

But

With packaging you get a certain price from subs for your channel, with each channel your not.

True the provider could charge more as history has shown that has happen with providers.

Sure I really love TV but at the same time I know to say enough is enough.

How many times have memebers here said they increase prices for the packages they cut back, which is fine, there entiled to ddo so if they wish to so.

The point basically I'm trying to make:

Price?

People keep on saying they want choice?

But

How much and are they willing to pay the price to get that choice even if means paying way more then they are presently for less channels but the channels you want to have instead of channels you have to pay for that you don't want?

Basically thats the piont I'm trying to make?

 

[Dalek Prime]

Well, what I do know is that consumers, by meekly accepting the prices stated by the BDUs, and all other goods and services for that matter, drive up the costs for everyone else, the rest having to follow suit. If, as a group, consumer expectation was higher, business could not gouge us so much above actual cost to themselves.

But many consumers want it all, or are told they should want it all, and subvert their own economic well-being, as well as others, by purchasing blindly. The question is, what, beyond certain needs, do any of us really need? Do we need that second or third tv, or that new cell, or to repave the driveway that is perfectly functional? That's consumerism. *Sigh*

 

[MCIBUS]

I agree
But where will it end? Not just with TV but other things as well.

I know prices go up, but when does it become gauging, rather then just inflation?

 

[Dalek Prime]

I know prices go up, but when does it become gauging, rather then just inflation?

In a nutshell, when price outstrips inflation. Also note, that deflation never seems to lower cost to consumer. Funny that, no?

As to your question of "where will it end", it will continue to fluctuate, for better or worse, between the two market forces of consumer spending, and business profit. It's the balance of these that stabilize price to the satisfaction of both parties.

Cheers.

 

[travisc]

When is the last time we had a sustained period of deflation in Canada?

 

[Dalek Prime]

When is the last time we had a sustained period of deflation in Canada?

I only brought up deflation because MCIBUS mentioned it's opposite. But I don't even need to look that up... When was the last time business passed on any savings they may come upon, over time, to the consumer? My prediction of business reaction in (hypothetical) deflationary times is merely an extrapolation of past business behaviour.

 

[thenewdc]

Even if their were deflation, they'd still raise rates making all kinds of claims. When people start cutting down their packages, then they might listen and reduce rates.

 

[Dalek Prime]

Yep. Business won't hand the consumer anything that the consumer won't fight for, as a group. If one market force is weak, another market force fills the void left, for it's benefit.

 

[Bunkhouse]

I do think it costs way more then it should presently for TV and the reason why is we are forced to subsidize unpopular/uncommon channels in the process with current channel packaging. Yes we have hundreds and hundreds of channels, but if we wanted to cut out 50-75 channels we don't watch and not have to pay for them then pricing would become alot more reasonable. I too believe the current way tv costs are going they will inturn force more to reduce/cancel regular tv and replace it with another outlet (internet/other)

Bell's A-la carte pricing in Quebec is a good first step but i do think more needs to be done to offer comsumers more channel choice/flexibility. Sure some out there want it all, but other who only watch 3-4 times a week don't want to have to pay $60+ for only a handfull of channels that they watch, especially when certain channels provide online streams of tv shows.

Ideally, i've like to see a flat fee paid to the tv provider (say $10/month to provide service including local nets) then build on that with full a-la carte options. Let's say $5 for canada nets timeshifting, $5 US nets inc timeshifting. Then building on that $X for Y number of channels, even tier them if the channel costs vary.

-no bundling YTV, teletoon, galaxie radio, random radio stations, ect in a basic pakage.

If this were to happen, we would see some channels go bust as they would not be popular, but inturn it would force others to be more focused on content to win over subscribers.

There is alot of competiton on the horizon with internet tv/netflix and other services starting up and the tv providers need to start giving comsumers more options or they will lose alot of subscribers.

I dropped bell a few years ago as $60 a month was my break point. In my mind it should not be over $45 for my viewing habbits (basic nets/showcase/tsn/sportsnet/comedy, non HD)

 

[vjose78]

I agree with Bunkhouse. I don't like having to pay $60 or $80 or whatever it is a month when there are many channels I don't watch meanwhile there are others that I would love to watch but don't want to pay extra for. I'd be more than happy to pay the same amount as I am now, as long as I have the ability to choose which channels I want or what channels I want in each package. Currently I believe Shaw allows you to choose any 5, 10, or 15 of their digital channels for a certain price. I would love to see this feature extended to all specialty channels so I can choose what I want.

 

[travisc]

Scenario... Channel X makes $30 million a year from subscriber fees, because it is 60% penetrated across Canada due to packaging restrictions. It charges 40 cents per month to the distributor.

The a la carte universe arrives. It gets unpackaged, and penetration drops to 15%, those people who really want it. The channel wants to make the same amount from subscriber fees, so they crank their rate up to $1.60 per month. The BDU turns around and charges you $3 or more for one channel.

Subscriber can now pay for only the channels they want... They're paying $30 for basic and for 15 channels they watch regularly. Those channels cost $55, because TSN and Sportsnet cost $8 each.

How does anyone win in this situation?

 

[Bunkhouse]

They should still offer standard packaging they have now, but offer full a-la carte as an option. Some people like a simple programming structure to choose from but a-la carte would be a last resort for some subscribers who would otherwise leave the service due to price.

Worst case some unpopular channels will dieout and other channels will pickup their programming rights. There are channels in my guide that i can't figure out if people even watch.

There is no reason for the overall price to be higher with an a-la carte option given similar package configurations.

 

[travisc]

I agree, the overall price should end up the same but you'll get a lot less channels. Popular channels will get a larger piece of the pie, some will die out as you say, and overall choice will be lessened.

 

[GeorgeMx]

...
There is no reason for the overall price to be higher with an a-la carte option given similar package configurations.

Actually there are reasons. A channel in a package benefits from promotion of the package as a whole and less popular channels ride on the coat tails of the stronger channels. The overall package will have greater penetration than the individual channels. If a channel experiences a decline in audiences for whatever reason then the subscriber revenue is not affected because it is based on the number of customers buying the package. Risk is significantly reduced.

A channel that has to promote itself outside a package will have higher advertising costs. The wholesale price to the BDUs will be much higher because the number of viewers will be based on the individual audience figures for the channel rather than the number of subscribers to the package. A channel that costs 50 cents wholesale to the BDU when sold in a package might cost $2.00 wholesale if the audience for the channel is 25% of the penetration of the tier. The BDU will probably price the channel at $3.95 or higher to maintain its profit margin and cover the cost of selling and administering channels sold one at a time.

A channel being sold alone will have an incentive to purchase more and better programming. The number of repeat shows will probably decline and the competition with other specialty channels to purchase the best shows will increase thus driving the licensing fees higher. The channel will have a higher overall cost for its programming.

Sports channels will inevitably cost more. Television rights and production are expensive so the networks will want to find the optimum balance between price and the number of subscribers to maximize profits. It is not hard to imagine that TSN or Sportsnet would each become 3 or 4 channel multiplexes and cost more than $10 per month at retail.

At the end of the day, a-la-carte will result in fewer channels and higher prices for those that survive. Whether this is a good or bad thing for the consumer will only be known if it actually happens.

 

[Tridus]

Scenario... Channel X makes $30 million a year from subscriber fees, because it is 60% penetrated across Canada due to packaging restrictions. It charges 40 cents per month to the distributor.

The a la carte universe arrives. It gets unpackaged, and penetration drops to 15%, those people who really want it. The channel wants to make the same amount from subscriber fees, so they crank their rate up to $1.60 per month. The BDU turns around and charges you $3 or more for one channel.

Subscriber can now pay for only the channels they want... They're paying $30 for basic and for 15 channels they watch regularly. Those channels cost $55, because TSN and Sportsnet cost $8 each.

How does anyone win in this situation?

If the package has 6 channels at $0.40 and I only care about one of them, $1.60 is still a bargain since I was paying $2.40 before.

Remind me how I'm not a winner here? The main losers are channels that simply ride on the popularity of other channels and would die if they had to find their own audience.