Charter Spectrum’s groundbreaking Walt Disney carriage deal -- which included Disney+ -- isn’t working out, according to reports.
Only an estimated one million out of 9.5 million subscribers of Charter Signature Select pay TV package have accessed Disney+, according to one report.
That means a lot of wasted carriage expenses for Charter.
So is bundling not always a good thing? Perhaps rolling streaming platforms into still traditional-looking legacy pay TV packages isn’t an entirely smooth experience for consumers.
Would Charter Corp. -- and Charter consumers -- save money if they didn’t want Disney+: Easily opting out of a streamer for a month or so is now a standard adjustment for modern streaming TV consumers.
advertisement
advertisement
There are other concerns, according to analysts. For example, Charter doesn’t allow Disney+ subscribers on its Signature Select package to upgrade to ad-free Disney+.
That means you have to add Disney+ via another streaming distributor. You would then -- in effect -- be paying for two.
All the while, LightShed Partners media analyst Richard Greenfield says Disney is benefiting from getting between $3 and $4/month per subscriber for those 9.5 million, whether they use it or not. Greenfield also notes that current Charter subscribers may have trouble finding where Disney+ exists on its platform.
Charter believes -- as do others -- that bundling continues to be important, now in the world of streaming -- including now-hybrid linear-streaming packages.
For those purists, other companies are thinking of streaming-only bundling (which could be attached to broadband and mobile services) like Verizon, T-Mobile.
In addition, companies like Walt Disney are striking their own deals -- for example, a Disney+, Hulu, Max Bundle. Think about other media combination themes when it comes to retail distribution.
Is this good news? Not really. All this to cause massive confusion for consumers -- who sometimes forget where, when and what streamers are accessible to them, given their current media packages.
Even TV Watch was confused and lost when a separate subscription was thought to be necessary to watch an important cycling sports event. As it turns out, Max -- through its sister sports pay TV service Eurosport, via Max’s sister streamer discovery+ -- was packaged on DirectTV with an HBO linear cable TV addition to the bundle.
Got it? (I barely do.)
Truth is, any distribution of linear and/or streaming packages of programming want subscribers to stay around for a long time -- without “cord-cutting,” without churning (the subtraction or addition or networks/streamers).
That can come with bundling, and the lure of price savings... but only if you commit for a long period of time -- for example, a year.
This builds on the longtime notion of convincing subscribers what a good deal legacy TV networks is -- hundreds of channels for $50- $80 a month.
In essence traditional pay TV companies want to lure those consumers back -- via limited-term price deals. Question is what happens to those deals a year from now.
Opt-out, stay-in? Or maybe just go all ‘a la carte” and manage streaming and linear on a case by case basis. Modern TV-video consumers may want to be fully in control. If that’s the case, the business will change again.
Wayne, with bundling it's the combined appeal of the whole bundle that's key. It's not essential that every channel in the bundle be wildly popular with subscribers so long as there are enough chanels the package that, vollectively, satisfies a family's needs. In the case you describe, it's likely tat kids were the main viewers of Disney+, not adults, however, men were undoubtedly the main viewers for ESPN, men and women for NBC, women, mostly for Lifetime, etc. If Charter went to an a la carte system, it would have to substantially hke the prices for each on the channels it was offering---if bought alone---or cancelled individually. So you cancel Disney+ thinking you are saving a few dollars per month and you keep ESPN, NBC and Lifetime but pay more for them. Simple.