Pick-and-pay TV would reshape the medium

17 Oct
Could the government kill Mr. T's new show? One can only hope.

Could the government kill Mr. T’s new show, World’s Craziest Fools? One can only hope.

I recently moved house and, in doing so, briefly entertained the notion of signing up to cable. It was a very short consideration, given there’s only one channel I really want – the Comedy Network. Fishing around on the local cable provider’s website, I discovered that acquiring that channel, plus a whole lot of other junk I don’t want, would cost me about $73 a month, plus device rental or purchase. If I wanted to add an HD PVR, that would be another $25 or so. I checked on the other guys’ website and, wouldn’t you know it, the prices were pretty much the same. So the one channel I want would ultimately cost me $100. Lunacy, right?

Wednesday’s speech from the throne, which included a promise from the federal government to institute a pick-and-pay system where consumers would be free to choose only the channels they want, has drawn a lot of flak from media commentators for being short on details, silent on major issues and overly populist. My favourite take on it actually comes from Sun Media bureau chief David Akin, who covers the coverage and wonders whether the various columnists and experts are being too precious and self-righteous. The “Media Elites,” he writes, may themselves be out of touch with the things ordinary Canadians care about.

He’s probably right, since the instituting of pick-and-pay TV is something millions of Canadians are likely to be very interested in. Moreover, rather than being the insignificant populist pandering that some are suggesting, such a plan has the potential to shake up and transform the way people inform and entertain themselves.

As a number of observers have predicted, instituting a-la-carte channels is likely to have two obvious results: first, the popular channels will probably end up costing a lot; and second, the unpopular channels are likely to die off. Such predictions use pretty simple math – TV providers package less successful content with the good stuff so that they can sell advertising bundles and then spread that money around. In effect, the better channels subsidize the others.

Pick-and-pay is fundamentally good for consumers because they’ll finally be able to get what they want – say, the Comedy Network – without a bunch of stuff they don’t. The analogies are numerous; for some people, being forced to subscribe to, say, sports channels when they have no interest in them is akin to a vegetarian having to buy steak at the grocery store.

Such a system is naturally bad news for TV providers because they will inevitably make less. As one analyst put it, “I can’t for the life of me see how à la carte programming isn’t going to reduce the amount you and I spend… I don’t see how it can’t have a negative impact” on their revenue.

The question then, is how high can the prices on those individual popular channels go? That’s where the other good news comes in. Exposing channels to actual market forces will actually make them competitive and likely force a change in how they’re sold. If a TV provider prices a particular channel too high, fewer people will subscribe to it. If the actual content provider – say, HBO, for example – isn’t happy with the number of subscribers (and revenue) it’s getting from a particular television provider, it may find it more worthwhile to go direct to consumers over the internet through a Netflix-style streaming service.

HBO fans, for one, have been waiting and praying for this to happen for a while now. A forced split from TV bundles may be the final push the channel needs to do a direct offering, free from any sort of cable subscription. The same could happen for a lot of channels. Ultimately, TV providers could be disintermediated from the entire process.

The current TV situation bears many similarities to the block-booking system that Hollywood ran on until the late 1940s. Under block booking, content providers (movie studios) required theatres to buy and show less-desirable B fare if they also wanted the A-list stuff. The system spread the cash around for the studios, but it cost the theatres more and at the same time disseminated a lot of low-quality content.

U.S. authorities found the system to be inefficient and anti-competitive and in 1948 they smashed it open. Actors were laid off and fewer films were produced initially, but the various players adapted, innovated and improved. No one can argue the movie industry hasn’t been better for it since in every measure.

The TV realm is likely to see the same gains after the same initial pains. As Chase Carey, chief operating officer of the Fox television network, recently said: “The priority should shift from quantity to quality. We’d rather have a bouquet of great channels than acres of mediocre channels.” In other words: more Breaking Bad, less World’s Craziest Fools. That’s a world I’d like to live in.

The broader TV system isn’t likely to change unless a shakeup happens where it really matters, down south in the United States. Canada, however, is still an important market for U.S. television and a big change here may really be the one card that finally causes the whole house to topple.

The details of the government’s pick-and-play system are important, but make no mistake: if done correctly, it has the potential to dramatically change how a great many North Americans inform and entertain themselves. Despite what the “media elites” may say, this could be a potentially huge development.


Posted by on October 17, 2013 in government, netflix, television


4 responses to “Pick-and-pay TV would reshape the medium

  1. Pick-and-pay-more

    October 17, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Currently I get my TV from OTA, Netflix, and downloads. It works but is cumbersome compared to paying through the nose and using a DVR. I’m cheap, so I tolerate some inconvenience to save big bucks.

    I welcome content providers cutting out the middle-man, including Netflix. Netflix does provide massive pipes, billing, searching, etc. Not something the smaller content providers could afford. So, OK, let’s keep Netflix and others like them to aggregate the content and make it simpler to visit one or two places rather than hunting for content on the vast Internet.

    Giving me access to content by episode should be the minimum offered granularity. A discount for the series — sure — but I don’t want to have to subscribe to a channel just to watch one series.

    That’s all available today on iTunes. But have you looked at iTunes pricing? $2 for a 22-minute show that may be mediocre? Nope, ain’t payin’ that much. Although I have owned an Apple TV for years I have never purchased a TV show from them due to the laughable pricing.

    I fear that content providers will develop an inflated sense of self-worth and demand premium pricing. But they need to understand that I budget only so much for TV and I need to parcel it up between all the shows I want to watch. I was paying $70/month with Rogers for basic cable and a DVR. They’ve earned their nickname of “Robbers.” Now I pay $1.67/month for a TV Guide service for my computer-based OTA DVR.

    Perhaps I’m a cynic but I feel that a move to truly à la carte TV will only see prices go up for the content I’d watch. That means I’ll be on OTA for the foreseeable future.

  2. myschoolhouserocks

    October 17, 2013 at 11:56 am

    I pity the fool who makes fun of Mr. T’s show.

  3. Marc Venot

    October 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    Compare with (aaa) games:

  4. A(nother) Yes Man (@elquintron)

    October 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    How could you say no to a new Mr. T show? Some of us have been waiting for this since the A-Team!

%d bloggers like this: