Community Forum

Solution to the "Dropped Channels" Problem?

Frequent Visitor

Solution to the "Dropped Channels" Problem?

Removed by me for violating forum guidelinesOK, so everyone is trying to carve out a piece of the money pie that is TV/Video.  Disney is starting a streaming service, Netflix loses Disney content, CBS All Access charges to view the CBS library of shows, and now Apple is spending billions to launch their own streaming service.  Cable channels want a piece of this pie and their solution is to increase the monthly price per customer they charge cable operators.  It stinks, but that's the way it is, Sling and Hulu notwithstanding.

 

Comcast cut out Cinemax from their bundle and replaced it with <Edited> Hitz.  But, you can still get Cinemax if you want it by paying extra.  How about doing the same thing for channels like WGN America and Investigation Discovery.  Negotiate a charge per customer based on each customer who really wants these channels paying for it.  I would be willing to pay extra, maybe $3-4 per month to add back WGN.  Comcast should have a fair amount of pricing power since it is the largest U.S. cable operator.  I probably would have switched to FIOS, but <Edited> dropped Fox Sports just before football season!  Come to think of it, I would also be willing to pay extra for RFD TV that you unceremoniously dropped about two years back.  I know the programming gurus at Comcast said it did not fit with the more "hip, urban" viewers that Comcast has, but then why keep the Cowboy channel, unless there are a secret group of people who really like to look at cowboy hats and chaps :-).  So Comcast, in the spirit of free enterprise see what the market will bear.  You already have the systems in place to bill for individual channels.  The ball is in your court.

Regular Contributor

Re: Solution to the "Dropped Channels" Problem?

You are not the 100th (and I doubt you are even the 1000th), much less the first, to suggest this. Do an online search; it is usually called "a la carte pricing."

 

The problem is, for the vast majority of channels, there are far too few viewers who would pay a particular price per month for just that channel to make those channels viable. The number of viewers would drop, so they have to raise their per-viewer price to make enough money to continue operating, but of course that results in even fewer people subscribing to it; they have to find the "sweet spot" that maximizes income. ESPN can get away with $5 per subscriber per month (and remember, this includes people who never watch it) for one very simple reason; the NFL. (Don't believe me? Check the "ACC Network" thread and see how many people are threatening to leave Xfinity if it's not available in time for a college football game.) WGN probably doesn't have that luxury.