Cord-Cutting, Or How to Stream your Way to Success

Woefully Inept

Woefully Inept

Ssraeszha Raider
8,963
34,847
But then you wouldn't be able to watch the Punjabi hockey movie that was on the over the weekend!
We cut our cord months ago. Was at my wife's cousin's house and she had that shit on and I couldn't even.
You don't play hockey in a goddamn turbin instead of a proper helmet dammit!!
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,486
2,295
You're missing out if you're not watching AMC and FX.
 
Kuriin

Kuriin

Just a Nurse
4,046
1,020
Whoooops...I forgot to add that I want those channels, too. Gotta have my Archer and schtuff.
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
This is the main problem with pretty much every service. Everyone wants different channels, but NOBODY needs all of the channels. Until we get to the point that we have truly a-la-carte channel choices, nobody is going to be completely satisfied, and you're always going to have people who feel like they are wasting money on stuff they don't need.

Myself? I'd happily give ESPN its $10 for the family of all it's channels, $15 to HBO, and then even $2 apiece(probably high estimate) for AMC, FX, and Comedy Central. Throw in NFL network for $2 and Fox Sports for $2 and then I'm set. That's literally 100% of what I watch on TV. That's probably $25 worth of channels, even estimating high.

The problem is, if you could choose channels individually, they'd likely be more expensive than that. ESPN is going to loose subscribers and thus advertising dollars if they aren't in every single basic channel package on every carrier. They're bigger than HBO, I could see a-la-carte ESPN costing something around $20-$30 a month just for it, if everything suddenly became un-bundled.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
I would assume there's a chance that his $15 figure based it on viewership not all subscribers. Lots of people watch it probably 40-50%, which would make the math work out.

And sure I'd cut stuff like lifetime too, but $0.23 - $2.50 a year is forgettable. $60+ a year is another game paid for.

Hell, I watch like 5 total channels ever. I would love complete a la carte.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,486
2,295
joeboo_sl said:
This is the main problem with pretty much every service. Everyone wants different channels, but NOBODY needs all of the channels. Until we get to the point that we have truly a-la-carte channel choices, nobody is going to be completely satisfied, and you're always going to have people who feel like they are wasting money on stuff they don't need.

Myself? I'd happily give ESPN its $10 for the family of all it's channels, $15 to HBO, and then even $2 apiece(probably high estimate) for AMC, FX, and Comedy Central. Throw in NFL network for $2 and Fox Sports for $2 and then I'm set. That's literally 100% of what I watch on TV. That's probably $25 worth of channels, even estimating high.

The problem is, if you could choose channels individually, they'd likely be more expensive than that. ESPN is going to loose subscribers and thus advertising dollars if they aren't in every single basic channel package on every carrier. They're bigger than HBO, I could see a-la-carte ESPN costing something around $20-$30 a month just for it, if everything suddenly became un-bundled.
Click to expand...
This is why ala carte seems like a good idea but it probably isn't. Yeah we all pay for channels that we don't watch, but the big pool of money allows a lot of niche channels to exist that wouldn't in an ala carte system, and I subsidise your niche and you subsidise mine. I'm sure there are plenty of people that only watch mainstream channels, but if you watch the major networks, that's what you can expect when all TV is made for a mass audience. American Idol gets way more viewers and costs way less to produce than Mad Men. Personally I have no problem with paying $75-100 a month for a ton of options whenever I get the urge to watch TV. It's not that expensive for the amount of entertainment you get IMO.

Part of the reason ESPN is $10 a month is because a shitload of people that don't watch it are subscribing to it. If 2/3 of them stop paying, it probably goes to $30 a month and the end result is you pay the same amount for 30 channels that you want instead of 100 channels that include the 30 that you want.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
Depends how much you watch TV Brut. I truly watch around 30 hrs a month, $2.50-3/hr.

Almost matinee theatre pricing if you don't factor in the second person.
 
Crone

Crone

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
9,709
3,211
BrutulTM_sl said:
This is why ala carte seems like a good idea but it probably isn't. Yeah we all pay for channels that we don't watch, but the big pool of money allows a lot of niche channels to exist that wouldn't in an ala carte system, and I subsidise your niche and you subsidise mine. I'm sure there are plenty of people that only watch mainstream channels, but if you watch the major networks, that's what you can expect when all TV is made for a mass audience. American Idol gets way more viewers and costs way less to produce than Mad Men. Personally I have no problem with paying $75-100 a month for a ton of options whenever I get the urge to watch TV. It's not that expensive for the amount of entertainment you get IMO.

Part of the reason ESPN is $10 a month is because a shitload of people that don't watch it are subscribing to it. If 2/3 of them stop paying, it probably goes to $30 a month and the end result is you pay the same amount for 30 channels that you want instead of 100 channels that include the 30 that you want.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. I don't give a shit about sports, and I long since cut the cord, but a la carte wouldn't be nearly as cheap as people make it out to be.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,486
2,295
Vaclav_sl said:
Depends how much you watch TV Brut. I truly watch around 30 hrs a month, $2.50-3/hr.

Almost matinee theatre pricing if you don't factor in the second person.
Click to expand...
I don't watch much more than that. It doesn't seem that expensive to me.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,588
11,904
I would be willing to pay more for the channels that I actually want and watch, then to be forced to pay and subsidize shit like OWN or Lifetime. I also have no use for certain channels at certain times of the year and would also save money that way.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
Abefroman_sl said:
I would be willing to pay more for the channels that I actually want and watch, then to be forced to pay and subsidize shit like OWN or Lifetime. I also have no use for certain channels at certain times of the year and would also save money that way.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Just like how I only do HBO all year because of the "half price on a year" promos - if they'd ever stop them, since I only care about HBO for 4-5 months out of the year - I'd micromanage it to only pay when I care to watch it.

Hell, it would be nice for complete a la carte just so I wouldn't have a stupidly long channel list to worry about navigating. And I could care less if niche shit like "Fishing Network", OWN and Lifetime survive - free market, baby. What are we in here, TV communists?
 
T

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
I don't think you want free market TV as much as you think you do. You wanna be held hostage by the vast amount of idiots in this country? You want your only option to be procedural cop dramas and reality television?
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
The Ancient_sl said:
I don't think you want free market TV as much as you think you do. You wanna be held hostage by the vast amount of idiots in this country? You want your only option to be procedural cop dramas and reality television?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't think the channels I enjoy would be going anywhere (Food Network is the only remotely iffy one - and that one seems like it would just get pricier, not go extinct to me) - and at least two of the channels in question do run that sort of garbage on the other days I don't watch them anyhow.... I'm stuck supporting those types of programming regardless because some of the channels I like do both anyhow.

But regardless I'm just opposed to pointless bundling unless the rate is ridiculously cheap as a result (like Humble Bundles) - I don't like being "wasteful" either because of clutter it adds [i.e. Steam games listing/TV listings] or because of true waste...
 
Siliconemelons

Siliconemelons

Avatar of War Slayer
11,017
15,498
Random, but what all can that playstation TV do in terms of streaming services- and does it do anything stand alone? Without streaming my from PS3/4?
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,486
2,295
So you guys are arguing that less options for the same price would be an improvement?

People assume that their shows would all still be there and just the shows that they weren't interested in would go away. The people who watch the fishing shows and Lifetime and whatever else are paying into the pot just as much as you are and in an ala carte world they are still going to watch TV, and the TV networks are still going to cater to them. Having less channels would mean they would try to make shows that appeal to everyone and not just a niche, which I think will just result in shows that none of us like as much. I just heard someone today say that the TV networks right now are "socialism that works" and I don't really see ala carte being an improvement even though it seems like one at first glance.
 
Jysin

Jysin

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,288
4,055
The argument could also be that you might not see cost savings, but the programs you care about are getting your money. Game of Thrones, True Detective, Breaking Bad, etc would have a more proportional reward of the money vs a few cents on my dollar going to Bubba's fishing documentary.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
BrutulTM_sl said:
So you guys are arguing that less options for the same price would be an improvement?

People assume that their shows would all still be there and just the shows that they weren't interested in would go away. The people who watch the fishing shows and Lifetime and whatever else are paying into the pot just as much as you are and in an ala carte world they are still going to watch TV, and the TV networks are still going to cater to them. Having less channels would mean they would try to make shows that appeal to everyone and not just a niche, which I think will just result in shows that none of us like as much. I just heard someone today say that the TV networks right now are "socialism that works" and I don't really see ala carte being an improvement even though it seems like one at first glance.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think you'd have them scrambling over the same stuff personally Brut anyhow - I think you'd see the Big 4 actually try to focus on a different type of programming each - people in most cases prefer to do a la carte stuff with a specialist in something, not a bunch of watered down half-assed versions. Perhaps you'd see the Big 4 spinning into multiple channels each to do "FoxReality", etc.

Dunno though, it's all hypotheticals in reality since we all know it's never going to happen that widely if it happens - any a la carteness is a marked improvement though.
 
K

Kedwyn

Silver Squire
3,915
80
They all play monkey see monkey do now to chase popular stuff I see no reason a LA carte would change that.
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
So in the future, why do we even need channels, as they exist today, as we transition over to receiving all of our content online? Why do I need an HBO subscription when I really just want Game of Thrones? That's 12 hours a year of programming. Charge me $5 per episode and be done wroth it. Want to watch a NFL game? $10.

Let me go to GameOfThrones.tv or BreakingBad.tv and purchase what I want to see.

I could see subscription-based services like Netflix for old, archived shows in bulk but just let me buy the new releases that I want without subscribing to an entire channel that I don't want any other content from. That would be true a-la-carte service

I'd definitely save money buying new release shows episodically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.