Pay Television customers are cutting the cable and ditching the dish by the hundreds of thousands.
There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is the economy. Folks simply can't afford to pay over a hundred bucks a month for TV. The real reason is the alternative programming choices like Apple TV or the increasing amount of programming available on the Internet. You can receive local stations free off-air, many other channels are free via the 'Net and there's a huge amount of programming that yes, you have to pay for, but it's on demand and you only pay for what you really want to watch.
I love Entourage but don't subscribe to HBO. So I just wait for it to come out on iTunes and buy the season for under 20 bucks.
Here's the challenge satellite and cable companies face. It's the program providers themselves because of a process called bundling. When you purchase a programming package from a satellite or cable company, you do so in tiers. You can't just pick the channels you want to watch.
Here's how it works, and why satellite and cable companies are held hostage, then have to hold you hostage as a consumer. Let's say a hugely popular channel decides to add another one to its programming line-up. Maybe they come up with the "Best of George Hamilton" channel. With apologies to George, it likely would attract few, if any viewers. But darn it, they believe in it and want eyeballs.
So the company will tell the satellite and cable companies that if they want to carry the hugely popular channel, they also have to "bundle" the boring channels as well. Which costs more, and that cost is passed on to you. You pay for what you don't watch.
Think about it. Of all the channels you have available to you, how many do you actually watch at your house. 5, 10, 15? This out of a several hundred you're having to pay for. So Apple TV, or services like Netflix provide an alternative. You pay only for what you actually watch. Plus more and more channels are available free on the 'Net. Click, play, enjoy.
Out of the tens of millions of people who use satellite or cable, the loss of a few hundred thousand may not seem like much. But I remember back in the day when satellite companies came along and the cable companies laughed at the few hundred thousand original customers companies like DISH Network or DIRECTV offered. The cable companies long since stopped laughing. Actually a few tears were shed.
To be fair, no one has fought harder to keep programming costs down than DISH Network's Charlie Ergen. His battles with program providers are legendary. He's already adapting his company for the new way people watch TV, when and where.
In the toughest of economic times, the last thing people will give up besides food and shelter, is television. But they are no longer interested in, and can no longer afford to pay for programming they don't watch in the first place.
It's time for consumers to have the freedom to pay for only what they watch, a la carte. People that produce programming, and the companies that distribute it better wake up to that fact and find a way to make it work.
There's a counter-argument that a la carte programming would cost consumers more. It's akin to another argument (from Washington) that the states would never pass a balanced budget amendment. In both instances why not let us make that decision? "We the people" pay the bills. We're not "Monetary" units." We're customers.
(I've offered a friend in the industry equal time)
Brian Olson
Conversation Starters Public Relations
There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is the economy. Folks simply can't afford to pay over a hundred bucks a month for TV. The real reason is the alternative programming choices like Apple TV or the increasing amount of programming available on the Internet. You can receive local stations free off-air, many other channels are free via the 'Net and there's a huge amount of programming that yes, you have to pay for, but it's on demand and you only pay for what you really want to watch.
I love Entourage but don't subscribe to HBO. So I just wait for it to come out on iTunes and buy the season for under 20 bucks.
Here's the challenge satellite and cable companies face. It's the program providers themselves because of a process called bundling. When you purchase a programming package from a satellite or cable company, you do so in tiers. You can't just pick the channels you want to watch.
Here's how it works, and why satellite and cable companies are held hostage, then have to hold you hostage as a consumer. Let's say a hugely popular channel decides to add another one to its programming line-up. Maybe they come up with the "Best of George Hamilton" channel. With apologies to George, it likely would attract few, if any viewers. But darn it, they believe in it and want eyeballs.
So the company will tell the satellite and cable companies that if they want to carry the hugely popular channel, they also have to "bundle" the boring channels as well. Which costs more, and that cost is passed on to you. You pay for what you don't watch.
Think about it. Of all the channels you have available to you, how many do you actually watch at your house. 5, 10, 15? This out of a several hundred you're having to pay for. So Apple TV, or services like Netflix provide an alternative. You pay only for what you actually watch. Plus more and more channels are available free on the 'Net. Click, play, enjoy.
Out of the tens of millions of people who use satellite or cable, the loss of a few hundred thousand may not seem like much. But I remember back in the day when satellite companies came along and the cable companies laughed at the few hundred thousand original customers companies like DISH Network or DIRECTV offered. The cable companies long since stopped laughing. Actually a few tears were shed.
To be fair, no one has fought harder to keep programming costs down than DISH Network's Charlie Ergen. His battles with program providers are legendary. He's already adapting his company for the new way people watch TV, when and where.
In the toughest of economic times, the last thing people will give up besides food and shelter, is television. But they are no longer interested in, and can no longer afford to pay for programming they don't watch in the first place.
It's time for consumers to have the freedom to pay for only what they watch, a la carte. People that produce programming, and the companies that distribute it better wake up to that fact and find a way to make it work.
There's a counter-argument that a la carte programming would cost consumers more. It's akin to another argument (from Washington) that the states would never pass a balanced budget amendment. In both instances why not let us make that decision? "We the people" pay the bills. We're not "Monetary" units." We're customers.
(I've offered a friend in the industry equal time)
Brian Olson
Conversation Starters Public Relations
