[OutsiderFan]

I like the idea but no way are you going to get 600,000 people to shell out $100/year.  That price is way too high.  $30-40 would seem an attractive price to a larger market.

I couldn't disagree more.  Your $30-$40 price is one football ticket, and people spend way more than that on team gear, etc.  This subscription would give you dozens of your team's games as well as others.  The real question is how many true Pac-12 fans are there. 

People who don't want to pay $4/year for the Pac-12 Network aren't paying $30-$40 for it, and people who want it would gladly pay $100/yr for it.  I can't imagine there being any real Pac-12 fan who would say, "sure I'l pay 40 bucks a year for all games on any device, but at 100 I'm not getting it."

[OutsiderFan]

I like the idea but no way are you going to get 600,000 people to shell out $100/year.  That price is way too high.  $30-40 would seem an attractive price to a larger market.

I couldn't disagree more.  Your $30-$40 price is one football ticket, and people spend way more than that on team gear, etc.  This subscription would give you dozens of your team's games as well as others.  The real question is how many true Pac-12 fans are there. 

People who don't want to pay $4/year for the Pac-12 Network aren't paying $30-$40 for it, and people who want it would gladly pay $100/yr for it.  I can't imagine there being any real Pac-12 fan who would say, "sure I'l pay 40 bucks a year for all games on any device, but at 100 I'm not getting it."

[81alum]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14933.msg161241#msg161241 date=1461464860]
I like the idea but no way are you going to get 600,000 people to shell out $100/year.  That price is way too high.  $30-40 would seem an attractive price to a larger market.

I couldn't disagree more.  Your $30-$40 price is one football ticket, and people spend way more than that on team gear, etc.  This subscription would give you dozens of your team's games as well as others.  The real question is how many true Pac-12 fans are there. 

People who don't want to pay $4/year for the Pac-12 Network aren't paying $30-$40 for it, and people who want it would gladly pay $100/yr for it.  I can't imagine there being any real Pac-12 fan who would say, "sure I'l pay 40 bucks a year for all games on any device, but at 100 I'm not getting it."
[/quote]

I have never paid to view anything on my TV or online.  Not a sporting event, not a movie.  If I want to see a movie "on demand" I go to the library and check it out.  I'm not sure why I'm so cheap that way--it is partly the money--but even more the habit.  In fact, I don't even know how to use the pay-per-view feature that comes with my cable system.

If college sports start becoming a pay-per-view activity, I will probably stop watching it on TV.  And I'm not even all that casual of a fan.  I do have the advantage of being able to go to a game.  The cheapest stadium tickets on a non-sold-out day can be bought for less than $10 plus fees--generally less than $20 total--on gameday online.  Taking the games off free TV might have the effect of a blackout and force a few more people to go to the stadium.  That would be a positive, I suppose.

Stanford fans who frequent a message board like this one will be far more committed than most.  I think any kind of pay-per-view for Stanford athletics would have serious problems with the majority of the fan base.  Stanford fans are just not like other fans, on average.  The stadium goers are fickle--as is witnessed by their sporadic attendance at the stadium, depending on weather, traffic, and the win/loss record.  I would guess that the TV viewers are also fickle.  Getting these people to pay $20 to watch a game on TV is very, very doubtful--and if it is tried, it will shrink rather than expand the fan base.

[81alum]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14933.msg161241#msg161241 date=1461464860]
I like the idea but no way are you going to get 600,000 people to shell out $100/year.  That price is way too high.  $30-40 would seem an attractive price to a larger market.

I couldn't disagree more.  Your $30-$40 price is one football ticket, and people spend way more than that on team gear, etc.  This subscription would give you dozens of your team's games as well as others.  The real question is how many true Pac-12 fans are there. 

People who don't want to pay $4/year for the Pac-12 Network aren't paying $30-$40 for it, and people who want it would gladly pay $100/yr for it.  I can't imagine there being any real Pac-12 fan who would say, "sure I'l pay 40 bucks a year for all games on any device, but at 100 I'm not getting it."
[/quote]

I have never paid to view anything on my TV or online.  Not a sporting event, not a movie.  If I want to see a movie "on demand" I go to the library and check it out.  I'm not sure why I'm so cheap that way--it is partly the money--but even more the habit.  In fact, I don't even know how to use the pay-per-view feature that comes with my cable system.

If college sports start becoming a pay-per-view activity, I will probably stop watching it on TV.  And I'm not even all that casual of a fan.  I do have the advantage of being able to go to a game.  The cheapest stadium tickets on a non-sold-out day can be bought for less than $10 plus fees--generally less than $20 total--on gameday online.  Taking the games off free TV might have the effect of a blackout and force a few more people to go to the stadium.  That would be a positive, I suppose.

Stanford fans who frequent a message board like this one will be far more committed than most.  I think any kind of pay-per-view for Stanford athletics would have serious problems with the majority of the fan base.  Stanford fans are just not like other fans, on average.  The stadium goers are fickle--as is witnessed by their sporadic attendance at the stadium, depending on weather, traffic, and the win/loss record.  I would guess that the TV viewers are also fickle.  Getting these people to pay $20 to watch a game on TV is very, very doubtful--and if it is tried, it will shrink rather than expand the fan base.

[winflop]

If college sports start becoming a pay-per-view activity,

Has been for decades - ever since they started airing on cable/satellite only channels like ESPN.

[winflop]

If college sports start becoming a pay-per-view activity,

Has been for decades - ever since they started airing on cable/satellite only channels like ESPN.

[oldalum]

I would call satellite/cable only channels like ESPN "pay-to-view" in order to reserve the term "pay-per-view" for one specific event.

In an unbundled world, it's not that you'd be paying $100 extra to watch the Pac-12 network, you'd also be paying much less on the rest of your bill because you wouldn't get all those networks that you don't watch now (e.g., whatever that hunting channel is, etc.). With unbundled online streaming, most of my current $200/month cable bill would disappear. If $100 is too much, then the price would be less. You're right, though, that the fans on this board are more committed than the average fan; probably 80% of the sports I watch on TV is Pac-12 and that's got to be very atypical.

[oldalum]

I would call satellite/cable only channels like ESPN "pay-to-view" in order to reserve the term "pay-per-view" for one specific event.

In an unbundled world, it's not that you'd be paying $100 extra to watch the Pac-12 network, you'd also be paying much less on the rest of your bill because you wouldn't get all those networks that you don't watch now (e.g., whatever that hunting channel is, etc.). With unbundled online streaming, most of my current $200/month cable bill would disappear. If $100 is too much, then the price would be less. You're right, though, that the fans on this board are more committed than the average fan; probably 80% of the sports I watch on TV is Pac-12 and that's got to be very atypical.

[BostonCard]

I would call satellite/cable only channels like ESPN "pay-to-view" in order to reserve the term "pay-per-view" for one specific event.

In an unbundled world, it's not that you'd be paying $100 extra to watch the Pac-12 network, you'd also be paying much less on the rest of your bill because you wouldn't get all those networks that you don't watch now (e.g., whatever that hunting channel is, etc.). With unbundled online streaming, most of my current $200/month cable bill would disappear. If $100 is too much, then the price would be less. You're right, though, that the fans on this board are more committed than the average fan; probably 80% of the sports I watch on TV is Pac-12 and that's got to be very atypical.

It's an open question whether, on net, viewers would come out ahead or behind if they unbundled pay TV channels.  I suspect that households who have a narrow range of television interests and don't really care to channel surf, will come out ahead, while those that like a bunch of different channels or like the variety of channel surfing will do worse without their choice, in essence, being subsidized by others.  There are also the channels that one would want to watch for a single show.  Is it worth getting Fox Sports 1 for one or two Stanford football away games a year?  Is it worth getting FX just to see The Americans (great show by the way) or AMC just to watch the Walking Dead?  But I can tell you that unbundled, a lot of television channels will go for about >$10 a month, so it wouldn't take a ton of channels to get you back to your $100+ cable bill.

BC

[BostonCard]

I would call satellite/cable only channels like ESPN "pay-to-view" in order to reserve the term "pay-per-view" for one specific event.

In an unbundled world, it's not that you'd be paying $100 extra to watch the Pac-12 network, you'd also be paying much less on the rest of your bill because you wouldn't get all those networks that you don't watch now (e.g., whatever that hunting channel is, etc.). With unbundled online streaming, most of my current $200/month cable bill would disappear. If $100 is too much, then the price would be less. You're right, though, that the fans on this board are more committed than the average fan; probably 80% of the sports I watch on TV is Pac-12 and that's got to be very atypical.

It's an open question whether, on net, viewers would come out ahead or behind if they unbundled pay TV channels.  I suspect that households who have a narrow range of television interests and don't really care to channel surf, will come out ahead, while those that like a bunch of different channels or like the variety of channel surfing will do worse without their choice, in essence, being subsidized by others.  There are also the channels that one would want to watch for a single show.  Is it worth getting Fox Sports 1 for one or two Stanford football away games a year?  Is it worth getting FX just to see The Americans (great show by the way) or AMC just to watch the Walking Dead?  But I can tell you that unbundled, a lot of television channels will go for about >$10 a month, so it wouldn't take a ton of channels to get you back to your $100+ cable bill.

BC

[oldalum]

I'm thinking you will be able to just subscribe to and stream The Americans (my wife's a fan), or to an individual football game or to all Stanford games no matter which channel they're on, but maybe that's not possible. I think I could survive on ~10 channels, though, if I can get pay-per-view on other stuff.

[oldalum]

I'm thinking you will be able to just subscribe to and stream The Americans (my wife's a fan), or to an individual football game or to all Stanford games no matter which channel they're on, but maybe that's not possible. I think I could survive on ~10 channels, though, if I can get pay-per-view on other stuff.

[oldalum]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nba-pla...2016-04-22

[oldalum]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nba-pla...2016-04-22

[CTcard]

... Figuring out the optimal balance will be a difficult process for which there will be universal template.

Really looks like you missed a word here.
Just a little one, presumably either "no" or "a".

[CTcard]

... Figuring out the optimal balance will be a difficult process for which there will be universal template.

Really looks like you missed a word here.
Just a little one, presumably either "no" or "a".

[OutsiderFan]

It's real easy for a business to thrive when it's getting paid by people who are forced to be their customers.  But as soon as you let the market truly decide, there will be dozens of channels that won't have the support to exist.  Is that such a bad thing?

[OutsiderFan]

It's real easy for a business to thrive when it's getting paid by people who are forced to be their customers.  But as soon as you let the market truly decide, there will be dozens of channels that won't have the support to exist.  Is that such a bad thing?

[washingtonismoney]

It's real easy for a business to thrive when it's getting paid by people who are forced to be their customers.  But as soon as you let the market truly decide, there will be dozens of channels that won't have the support to exist.  Is that such a bad thing?

"Let the market decide" is such an odd, fungible standard. Why is "the market deciding" only properly done at the channel level? When I buy a book I don't only buy certain chapters; no one would say "let the market decide" ... [to read only the third chapter of the Great Gatsby]. When I buy a magazine I buy the whole thing, not just the feature articles.

So it strikes me that the current cable bundle is a perfectly valid way of offering access to TV. Should the market move to offering subscriptions to channels, that, too, would be perfectly plausible at the sloganeering level as well. (It would probably be worse for consumers, but that's life.)

[washingtonismoney]

It's real easy for a business to thrive when it's getting paid by people who are forced to be their customers.  But as soon as you let the market truly decide, there will be dozens of channels that won't have the support to exist.  Is that such a bad thing?

"Let the market decide" is such an odd, fungible standard. Why is "the market deciding" only properly done at the channel level? When I buy a book I don't only buy certain chapters; no one would say "let the market decide" ... [to read only the third chapter of the Great Gatsby]. When I buy a magazine I buy the whole thing, not just the feature articles.

So it strikes me that the current cable bundle is a perfectly valid way of offering access to TV. Should the market move to offering subscriptions to channels, that, too, would be perfectly plausible at the sloganeering level as well. (It would probably be worse for consumers, but that's life.)

[washingtonismoney]

No. And I think WIM's analogies don't work at all. You cannot possibly understand or enjoy the new Stephen King novel if you skip chapters three, four and five. Whereas my ability to enjoy The Americans is not at all contingent upon my tuning into the Golf Channel, MTV and Spike.

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

But, look, the point isn't the details. The point is, it's silly to view either bundled or unbundled options as the One True State of the Market. Many markets bundle services. Many don't.

[washingtonismoney]

No. And I think WIM's analogies don't work at all. You cannot possibly understand or enjoy the new Stephen King novel if you skip chapters three, four and five. Whereas my ability to enjoy The Americans is not at all contingent upon my tuning into the Golf Channel, MTV and Spike.

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

But, look, the point isn't the details. The point is, it's silly to view either bundled or unbundled options as the One True State of the Market. Many markets bundle services. Many don't.

[CornFed]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14933.msg161372#msg161372 date=1461685222]
No. And I think WIM's analogies don't work at all. You cannot possibly understand or enjoy the new Stephen King novel if you skip chapters three, four and five. Whereas my ability to enjoy The Americans is not at all contingent upon my tuning into the Golf Channel, MTV and Spike.

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

But, look, the point isn't the details. The point is, it's silly to view either bundled or unbundled options as the One True State of the Market. Many markets bundle services. Many don't.
[/quote]

Indeed, the different delivery options, bundled or bundled, are themselves components of a free market.  The choice of suppliers between these two options is driven by the demand side of that free market.  What makes a market free is not the form of products delivered.  It is the existence of willing buyers and willing sellers with relatively free and equal access to all relevant information.

[CornFed]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14933.msg161372#msg161372 date=1461685222]
No. And I think WIM's analogies don't work at all. You cannot possibly understand or enjoy the new Stephen King novel if you skip chapters three, four and five. Whereas my ability to enjoy The Americans is not at all contingent upon my tuning into the Golf Channel, MTV and Spike.

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

But, look, the point isn't the details. The point is, it's silly to view either bundled or unbundled options as the One True State of the Market. Many markets bundle services. Many don't.
[/quote]

Indeed, the different delivery options, bundled or bundled, are themselves components of a free market.  The choice of suppliers between these two options is driven by the demand side of that free market.  What makes a market free is not the form of products delivered.  It is the existence of willing buyers and willing sellers with relatively free and equal access to all relevant information.

[BostonCard]

Worth pointing out this episode of Planet Money on "The Great Unbundling"

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/0...unbundling

BC

[BostonCard]

Worth pointing out this episode of Planet Money on "The Great Unbundling"

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/0...unbundling

BC

[Rally]

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

And now that the Internet has made it practical, newspapers and magazines are largely coming unbundled. Dabigv can read Miami Herald stories on the Dolphins without having to pay for the Herald stories I write.

Indeed, the different delivery options, bundled or bundled, are themselves components of a free market.  The choice of suppliers between these two options is driven by the demand side of that free market.  What makes a market free is not the form of products delivered.  It is the existence of willing buyers and willing sellers with relatively free and equal access to all relevant information.

There has never been a free market in cable television. Cities treated cable TV as if it were a public utility and granted monopolies in return for substantial franchise fees. If my city allowed competition between multiple cable systems, I would bet dollars to mini-donuts that we'd have at least one company offering its channels unbundled. Then we'd see what buyers really would prefer.

In my area we have 4 choices:  Time Warner, Fios (just changed from Verizon to Frontier,) Dish and Direct.  None offer unbundled channels.  Even HBO comes with Showtime.

[Rally]

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

And now that the Internet has made it practical, newspapers and magazines are largely coming unbundled. Dabigv can read Miami Herald stories on the Dolphins without having to pay for the Herald stories I write.

Indeed, the different delivery options, bundled or bundled, are themselves components of a free market.  The choice of suppliers between these two options is driven by the demand side of that free market.  What makes a market free is not the form of products delivered.  It is the existence of willing buyers and willing sellers with relatively free and equal access to all relevant information.

There has never been a free market in cable television. Cities treated cable TV as if it were a public utility and granted monopolies in return for substantial franchise fees. If my city allowed competition between multiple cable systems, I would bet dollars to mini-donuts that we'd have at least one company offering its channels unbundled. Then we'd see what buyers really would prefer.

In my area we have 4 choices:  Time Warner, Fios (just changed from Verizon to Frontier,) Dish and Direct.  None offer unbundled channels.  Even HBO comes with Showtime.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

And now that the Internet has made it practical, newspapers and magazines are largely coming unbundled. Dabigv can read Miami Herald stories on the Dolphins without having to pay for the Herald stories I write.

Yes, I realize this. Don't get hung up on the details.I could just as easily note the iPhone forces you to download a bunch of Apple apps whether or not you actually like them. The point, once again, is simply that there's no holy writ that BUNDLED = evil, and UNBUNDLED = the One True Free Market.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, sure... but you could make the same argument re: the newspaper and magazine business.

And now that the Internet has made it practical, newspapers and magazines are largely coming unbundled. Dabigv can read Miami Herald stories on the Dolphins without having to pay for the Herald stories I write.

Yes, I realize this. Don't get hung up on the details.I could just as easily note the iPhone forces you to download a bunch of Apple apps whether or not you actually like them. The point, once again, is simply that there's no holy writ that BUNDLED = evil, and UNBUNDLED = the One True Free Market.

[CornFed]

[quote='garvin link' dateline='1461699670']

There has never been a free market in cable television. Cities treated cable TV as if it were a public utility and granted monopolies in return for substantial franchise fees. If my city allowed competition between multiple cable systems, I would bet dollars to mini-donuts that we'd have at least one company offering its channels unbundled. Then we'd see what buyers really would prefer.

Exactly so.  The aspects that would characterize a free market are almost entirely non-existent in many industries and other areas in the U.S.

[CornFed]

[quote='garvin link' dateline='1461699670']

There has never been a free market in cable television. Cities treated cable TV as if it were a public utility and granted monopolies in return for substantial franchise fees. If my city allowed competition between multiple cable systems, I would bet dollars to mini-donuts that we'd have at least one company offering its channels unbundled. Then we'd see what buyers really would prefer.

Exactly so.  The aspects that would characterize a free market are almost entirely non-existent in many industries and other areas in the U.S.