Commentary
As Cable Looks For Retrans Help, It Should Consider What Viewers Want, Too
- by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, March 10, 2010
The cable industry wants a review of all those retransmission rules. But it should consider that review only in the context of what their viewers really want to see. And that may lead to where the cable industry doesn't really want to go: the question of a la carte programming.
In the end, when cable operators like Time Warner Cable or Cablevision Systems -- in the middle of very public retransmission negotiations -- ask customers what they should pay for the likes of a Fox TV station or a Disney-ABC TV station, they're asking the wrong question. The question should be: What channels do you really want to watch? Then ask how much consumers are willing to pay for them.
advertisement
advertisement
The bottom line is that cable operators spend bucket loads of fees for poorly rated cable networks. If you are a cable operator that claims to listen to your customers, listen more closely to their actual voting: their viewership. They are already telling you what they think is valuable.
Cable operators don't respond well when critics tell them what they should be airing on their systems: they always scream First Amendment. But low-rated networks are not what viewers want. Viewers should scream back.
Broadcasters could perhaps do better, too. If their stuff is so valuable, why don't they just find a better distribution partner to deal with? Problem is in most communities, cable operators are still the dominant way to get TV signals, so they hold a pseudo-monopoly.
Most arguments for a la carte programming say consumers are now spending more - for less. That's because the TV industry works best when it comes to big scale. But for more money, consumers should be assured to get exactly what they want.
Cable operators want it both ways: to be left alone to charge consumers what they wish, and to put on whatever channels they want. They don't want any government involvement. Of course, that's exactly how they got those cable franchises in the first place.
But think about the New York-area consumers who were looking at a blank screen this past Sunday for the first 15 minutes that the Oscars weren't on the air because of conflicts between Cablevision and ABC.
I'm sure some might have been wondering, "Could I do without the Needlework Network right now? Do I really need Poker Planet? Can I part with the Fur Channel today?"
Wayne Friedman is West Coast Editor of MediaPost. You can reach Wayne at wayne@mediapost.com.
Here in Dallas, we have access to a great TV station in Free over the air, Digital TV, Channel 31.4.
They show classic TV programming; I am ready to scrap my cable and go back to Free TV.
Why pay for programming I don't want to watch or have my family watch.
Channel 31.4 is pure entertainment!!!!!!
I understand the frustration of New Yorkers. But such heavy-handed tactics have been around since millions of young Americans learned to say "I Want My MTV". I wonder why WABC went the consent round last time - did it have anything to do with the sudden plethora of ESPN and Disney spinoff channels that suddenly appeared afterwards?
Many cable television operators will tell you that basic cable plus - i.e., broadcast TV and dozens of niche channels - was the most successful product in the history of media. Not just cable TV, but all media.
Imagine a Monster Truck Channel alongside Poker Planet and Fur Channel. Vote that crap off the island, right?? Well, it took a few years but that Monster Truck Channel (ESPN) found its legs and is now a top broadcaster of pro sports. Likewise, CNN was widely derided as a stupid idea and incredible money loser for YEARS until the first Gulf War happened -- consumers started watching news round-the-clock -- and even after the conflict ended, consumers still wanted to get their news around the clock. Cable operators don't pay "bucket loads of fees" for poorly-rated channels; pricing increases are most often coming from those networks that pay multi-million dollar licenses to pro sports and seek to pass those costs along to the consumer.
At its inception, YouTube bragged that what we now know as the "Long Tail" would produce dozens, then hundreds of compelling TV products worthy of HBO or broadcast TV. Years and much significant investment later, YouTube has failed to produce a single concept that has captured the public's imagination.
I challenge anyone to come up with a similar media initiative - either online or offline - that has managed to incubate as many popular money-generating franchises, or as much overall value, as basic cable.
Hey, Wayne. Don't trash The Fur Channel - I love it! Oh, wait. I'm confusing that with another channel. Oops.
But seriously, as other new media arise in availability and quality, more and more viewers will look outside of traditional broadcast and cable media for new and innovative programming.
Low rated networks are not what viewers want? Well, a 0.2 rated network with national distribution in 90 million cable homes has 180,000 homes tuning in at any given snapshot in time. That 0.2 rated network is EXACTLY what those 180,000 viewers want.
Mad Men, Damages, SportsCenter, The Closer, Project Runway, Lost, 24, American Idol, 30 Rock, Nip/Tuck, Life, Real Housewives of ....., Top Chef, Breaking Bad, Grey Gardens, Dexter, Spongebob Squarepants----is there any doubt we are truly living in the Golden Age of Television? Take the best of broadcast from the other "golden age" circa 1960. Multiply by 50. That's today's quality television environment. It is precisely because cable networks with their dual revenue stream DON'T have to program to the lowest common denominator that we have this kind of quality. Thank goodness they don't have to subscribe to your "Low rated networks are not what viewers want" philosophy.
On another point, cable operators don't "scream first amendment" when critics tell them what to put on their systems. They "scream first amendment" when a grandstanding politician starts to talk about controlling what they put on their (privately built) system. And for what it's worth, I'm pretty fond of the First Amendment myself. I hope you are, too.
Lastly, if five years ago my cable operator had given me the option of a la carte, I doubt that I would have selected AMC. I hardly watched the channel. Meanwhile, AMC benefited from the odd times I did watch the channel, plus they collected 10 or 15 or 20 cents per month from my cable operator (not sure of their sub fee). Then three years ago AMC unveiled one of the greatest programs in television history: Mad Men. Were it not for the existing model of cable television, that show would never have seen the light of day. Would that have meant the dissolution of the Republic? No. But let's not pretend that we would have anything close to the quality and quantity of amazing programming we enjoy today if we were to adopt a la carte.
It's too bad the broadcasters and their netowrks didn't have the guts back in the 1990s, when broadcast was still uber-powerful, to negotiate real payment, rather than extra channels on cable. Audiences were still addicted to broadcast in those days, much more than they are today. Bad decisions have come home to roost.
Thanks Wayne! Simply put, bundling creates problems. In particular, the "Programming Wars" where the Big Cable clashes with the channel over the carriage fee. The subscribers are stuck in between, powerless to pick their channel. With the Cablevision vs WABC catfight this past weekend, frustrated subscribers were forced to do an end run and buy the old-fashioned rabbit ears to watch the beginning of the Oscars. At least Radio Shack must've had record sales!
Regardless who wins these Programming Wars, we ultimately pay the monthly cable bill.
@Kevin Barry. I hear you about the diversity of programming... the conventional wisdom is a la carte threatens the demise of the niche networks, which would no longer be subsidized. I believe wholeheartedly in diversity in programming and in life. But, individual households who are attempting to selectively spend money for entertainment shouldn't be forced to shoulder the burden of the cost of the most expensive networks. Most times, the rich and the privileged subsidize the poor. With entertainment, the poor, or at least thrifty, are subsidizing the heavy viewers. That's like saying feed the rich, and tax the poor.
For all the frustrated cable subscribers out there... hey, i was one of them, I started a site devoted to TV a la carte. The hope is to empower people to support the movement bringing transparency and competition to the cable industry.
Surf over to http://tvalacarte.org to learn more and sign the petition.
As much as we think a la carte will be less expensive, I doubt it. Who or what is going to stop cable/telecom companies from raising their prices on the premium channels so high that these old out of sight and continually rising packages will look like bargains? We are going to pay one way or another.