Monday, July 20, 2009Make Cable TV Pay-per-Channel
Getty Images
Those cable-TV services that we pay so much for try to offer us a little of everything—seeking to appeal to every interest out there. But while the Cartoon Network, ESPN, the Game Show Network, WE, and Animal Planet all command strong viewerships, it’s unlikely that the same person who starts his day with Pokemon unwinds at night with the History Channel’s program on extreme trains.
What this means is that when you pay for basic cable, you’re footing the bill for dozens of channels whose presence on your TV is of no interest to you. What’s more, as Web sites like Hulu and networks like the CW, MTV, and ABC Family increasingly make shows available online at no cost, shelling out $30+ per month for television that you mostly skip over becomes even harder to swallow. And it can get expensive. One year of basic cable with Comcast runs upward of $552 per year; more if you want DVR. Factor in the cost of high-speed Internet, and you’re paying $800-plus per year for two portals that essentially offer the same programming.
Is there a way around this? Perhaps cable companies should start offering pay-by-channel television. Consumers would get to pick and choose which channels they want, eliminating the extraneous, and paying only for those they select. iTunes has made it unnecessary to buy an entire album just to get the song you really want; this move would do the same for TV. Cable companies could also offer bundles—for instance, a “youth package,” which would include Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, ABC Family, and Disney; or a “women’s television” bundle, showcasing WE, Oxygen, Bravo, and Lifetime.
While it’s doubtful that cable companies would be eager to switch to a pay-per-channel approach, all it would take is for one company to step up to the plate and offer significantly lower prices; they could end up making far more money even than Comcast – until that behemoth also got its act together and followed suit, as it would have no choice but to do.
Advertisers would benefit, since they’re always looking for ways to better target their messages to the right audiences. Knowing that consumers have specifically sought out the channels in their lineup increases the odds that those households will actually watch the programs they’ve got. And the demographics of each household could be more easily identified and marketed to, based on its programming choices.
The arrangement would also put greater pressure on networks to create compelling programming, because they could no longer bank on the likelihood that some viewers might simply stumble onto their shows serendipitously. To survive, they would need to inspire people to actively seek them out.
Of course, the growing competition from online programming calls into question whether it’s worth continuing to pay for television at all. But anyone who has huddled with friends around a laptop to watch an episode of Mad Men or Lost knows it isn’t comfortable. An inherent part of the television “experience” is group viewership—whether it’s reruns of Sex and the City during sleepovers, or Superbowl viewing with the guys. And there really is an appeal—unmatched by the computer-screen-viewing experience—to kicking back, grabbing some food and drink, getting situated on a comfortable couch, and settling in to watch some television.
But only the channels you want, of course.
Archives for Idea of the Day
Comments (1)
Comments on this entry have been closed.
This is a politically dead issue because, were it enacted, much of the cable lineup would go bust. There are also technology/cost issues. Implementation would require fully addressable (computer controlled) systems to allow the cable company the ability to lockout unwanted channels. This equipment of course is expensive and not all cable systems have it today.
Cable companies are monopolies in most of the country. Cities and towns typically have given exclusive rights to companies willing and able to put in the infrastructure for delivery to homes. Right now, the only viable competing technology is the Internet, but, unfortunately, programmers are unwilling to put their shows on the internet. After all...why kill their golden goose?
Unless the FCC changes the rules, we will continue to live with the current system and pay for a lot of unwanted programming.