The CEO of Time Warner Cable, Genn Britt, explains why you’ll never get a la carte cable channels: because most cable channels are crap.
WIRED: You’re already giving us video-on-demand and DVRs. Isn’t à la carte cable TV the logical next step?
BRITT: À la carte is really a step backward – you would end up with a lot less choice, less diversity. People like having maximum choice. We carry many channels that appeal just to niche groups and minorities. It’s by no means clear those could survive in an à la carte regime.
So those channels aren’t really supported by the marketplace. If I could pay for just the channels I want, I’d be a lot more valuable to advertisers.
Cable isn’t about having a few channels that appeal to everybody, it’s about having a lot of channels that appeal to everybody. You may not watch C-Span every night, but it’s good to know it’s there.
Which is why I’d probably include C-Span on my monthly order, even if I only watch it once every few months. But I’d give a shiny nickel to not have to pay for (or wade through) about 7/8 of what I get in my cable package — channels I am forced to pay for/wade through in order to get the few channels I do want.
Cable and satellite are in cutthroat mode. Couldn’t à la carte be an opportunity for you to differentiate Time Warner Cable from its competitors?
If that’s what people wanted, yes. But the assumption is wrong. Every time we’ve tried to offer more packages with fewer channels – more toward à la carte – consumers always went for the big packages. People actually like this service, which is why 90 percent of the homes in the country buy it.
No, offering packages with fewer channels isn’t a la carte — it’s offering fewer channels.
Offer me channels on a by-channel basis, with discounts for buying lots of channels, and I guarantee that I — and zillions of other folks — will leap at the opportunity.
(via Hit&Run)
And that goes to show you that the guy is an idiot. And my cable company is run by idiots as well. Since last year, our “basic cable” bill has gone from $30.00 to (now) $54.00+. Gee, satellite is something like $30.00 with about 5x channels. Maybe I should go for more for less. If I can’t get a la carte, I at least want a good price.
Not offering a la carte is just basic business sense, because they know that people would choose way fewer channels and their revenues would plummet. It’s the same with option packages on new cars – in order to get the wheels you have to pay for the sunroof, because then they get you to pay for both. Imagine if in the grocery store they only sold milk with a big block of swiss cheese. Don’t like swiss cheese but you want milk? Too bad.
Good point. In theory, all those options are cars are available separately — if you order from the factory. But not only does nobody want to do that, but it’s strongly discouraged by the dealership.
So you get the stereo you wanted, but only with the brushed praesiodymium wheel covers and the chrome-plated lunch dispenser. And in the wrong color. Ah, well — it’s not like you’re going to spend a lot of money on it, or a lot of time in it …
I went through the TV Guide and came up with between 9 and 12 channels I’d want, max.
If you really think about what he’s saying…most channels wouldn’t get people opting to keep them because they suck. To me that’s a good thing…why do I want them to keep the crappy channels? Basically the only reason they stick around is because they are supported by the cable companies ‘packages’. I say let the crappy channel die off because no one wants them or let them work on making themselves better so people would opt to keep them.
Yah, but what’s your definition of “crappy”. For example, say in theory I watch only speed vision and outdoor life network. (This is theoretical). Just because you think those are crappy, Should I get my channels taken away? How do they decide what costs what? It seems unfair to charge more for a channel because only a small group of people want it. If they were going to do this, you would have to pay the same amount for the Sci-Fi channel as for the Cartoon network or BET. I don’t see how they would realistically pull it off. In reality, I want my geek qualifying TV, but I don’t want to sacrifice my ESPN.
Personally, I think there is way too much children-oriented television, but that’s just me.