[opendtv] Re: Ideal A La Carte Package: 17 Channels | Multichannel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:18:59 -0400
Regards
Craig
On Jun 18, 2015, at 10:29 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Uuuh, and where do you see the term "MVPD"? Shows up nowhere. On the
contrary, 81 percent mention only a la carte, outside of traditional bundles.
Give it up Bert. The article describes the ideal multichannel package - 17
channels.
One more time from Wiki:
"a person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel
multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a
television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for
purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming."
Aka carte is simply to choose the channels you want from the MVPD service. And
in the case of this article they are talking about the trend towards a new
hybrid - a slim bundle of required channels and the ability to add additional
channels on an aka carte basis.
Sling offers a core bundle and add in mini bundles - not quite all carte, but
more personal choice.
Sony offers a core bundle and announced this week three channels available on
an aka carte basis, with more to come.
For the content owners this may be the optimal compromise.
They protect the huge second revenue streams for the popular
networks like ESPN, TNT, A&E, etc. and allow consumers to
buy the rest on an ala carte basis...
This is your imagination running away again, Craig.
No Bert. It is the ACTUAL structure of what both Dish and Sony ARE DOING. The
only difference is that sling has mini add on bundles rather than individual
channels like Sony, although Sling is offering HBO ala carte.
The article says very little, but what it does say is that a huge percentage
wants out of bundles, and it mentions specifically non-MVPD OTT sites. Plus,
the channels you listed are exactly what makes bundles expensive and
unappealing, with the Internet now providing so many options.
The article says a bundle. It is just a survey, but tells us what operators
might expect if they give subscribers more choice.
As for bundles being unappealing, please add the following qualifier:
TO YOU.
More than 80% of U.S. homes subscribe to some kind of bundle, and I am not
including new OTT services like Netflix.
It is your interpretation that people want out of bundles. The article says
otherwise. It says that people are willing to pay for bundles of channels they
actually watch.
I don't know that 17 is the magic number. But I continue to marvel why you
feel this urge to protect the legacy concepts.
I am not protecting anything. The legacy notion of bundles is far from dead. It
has just been abused to excess.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
