Kevin Martin's Latest Rationale For A La Carte Cable: Better Advertising
from the reaching dept
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's a big fan of a la carte cable, or the ability for customers to order and pay for only those particular channels they want. His feelings on the issue, however, have little to do with economics, since it's very unlikely the a la carte model would actually lower many cable bills at all, as per-channel prices would increase to offset lower subscriber numbers. Martin's love of a la carte is driven by his views on indecent programming, one of his favorite talking points, and it drove cable providers to offer "family tiers" of bland programming in hopes of avoiding new regulatory measures. While the debate over the family tiers and a la carte has died down lately, Martin hasn't forgotten about it, and told an advertisers' conference last week that a la carte would help them better target their ads. His argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense: he says that with the current tiered system, there's no way for advertisers to know how many people are watching each cable channel, because companies like Nielsen don't, or can't accurately track such figures. While we'll accept the possibility that Martin's been misquoted or his comments taken out of context, it's pretty silly. Viewing figures and demographics are what drive TV ad sales, so to suggest they don't exist for cable channels is a bit off the mark. Furthermore, how would selling channels a la carte change anything? All it would do is lower the maximum number of potential viewers for any channel; it still wouldn't magically tell advertisers how many people are watching at any given time. There's a vast difference between subscribers and actual viewers, and selling channels a la carte or in tiers won't make viewing figures any more accurate. Furthermore, a la carte could actually hinder those numbers by limiting the number of people who can access any particular channel. We know Martin loves the idea of a la carte so he can eradicate the chance of indecent programming coming into the homes of the easily offended (and those without remote controls), but this latest argument for it really doesn't hold water at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It doesn't hold water at all?
You say there's a "vast difference between subscribers and actual viewers," but... how? It seems that the number of subscribers (people who have voted with their wallet, instead of the far more capricious "time") would be an incredibly accurate method for calculating potential eyeballs on the ad. This would translate into a tighter control on the value of specific times for ads.
I think you'd just rather demonize Martin because he dares (dares!) to hope that giving parents increased control over their idiot box would help stem the flow of perceived indecency into their home. As a parent, I would definitely pay the same amount for less channels, as long as I got to choose which. I value choice, and am willing pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree...
Then again, advertisers are not necessarily that smart - repeating the exact same commercial on the same program three times does not make me fondly remember the company...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A la carte will never work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A la carte will never work
By the time you paid your value for the three channels you want, the cable company is glad to throw in the million remaining channels you DONT want and get their kickbacks or whatever arrangement it is that lets them keep broadcasting ESPN. They get your money for the channels you want; they get their money from the networks for the channels you don't want. In the end YOU the consumer are just an advertising venue. Enjoy it.
Wait, no, fuck that. I decline to participate. I don't care what it costs. Until I pay $50/mo or whatever it takes for my three channels, and no more, I wont have anything to do with the cable company. I will not be used as an advertising venue.
I will not be used as an advertising venue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A la carte will never work
so, don't blame the cable companies, blame the fucking distributers like sinclair that are all greedy fucks that think their shit is worth as much as something people actually want to watch, ROFL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is BS
I have no problem paying $100 a month for cable and all the premium channels, what I have a problem with is the rates keep going up and I'm not getting anything more but I still have to pay for channels and support companies that I do not want to.
How do they get away such a line of crap? Lobbying. Plain and simple. They wrote the laws in such a way to ensure fair competition which means they have to keep adding channels we don't want yet have to pay for.
The only solution at present is to go online and download programming which works (over the air HD programming is uploaded after the east coast airing), but not for all the random content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Satellite TV
If these cable/satellite companies want to charge us an arm and a leg for a handful of channels then, good. I am certain there wil be strong competition from smaller companies to pull that price down and equalize this injustice. This has gone on way too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Satellite TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not all about Ala carte
If I could instead pay $9.95 a month for a 3-5 channel commercial free news tier - I'd jump on it. I can 'pause' the show and create my own commercials as I see fit - plus the news would be FAR less biased by advertisers they rely on for revenue. I could even accept 2 minutes of commercials every 30 minutes, if it was necessary to keep costs down. 15-25 minutes of commercials an hour is getting ridiculous.
If all channels were like this or 'on-demand' I would probably end up spending more than I do now, except I would enjoy television rather than hate it. I can't stand even having to hit fast forward on a recorded show or watch the same commercial over and over again when it's live.
Cable is supposed to be about entertaining me, but it has become more about satisfying the advertiser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not all about Ala carte
Cable is supposed to be about entertaining me, but it has become more about satisfying the advertiser.
ha ha. that's pretty funny.
you, the viewer, are NOT the customer to the cable TV providers. you are the product. the advertisers are the customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not all about Ala carte
Exactly!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for Martin to go
Martin is only prusuing rules that favor corporate interests, more recently the video franchising ruling that is a giveaway to the phone companies. Time for Martin to go . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for Martin to go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]