This summer our family is foregoing cable TV, having cut it off completely in favor of a menu of Hulu and Netflix. In truth, we're probably watching more TV than we did before because so much of cable TV is crap and there's really a lot of good stuff on those two providers. But that's not why we quit...by doing this we're saving almost $90/month even after you add up the Netflix and Hulu fees.
Still, I miss watching sports, which you don't get on those two, and only watching highlights over the internet really isn't fulfilling. We did a trial of Sling TV, which gives you 21 channels (including the first two ESPNs) for $20, and could have added a sports package that included BeIN sports for another $5, but again, this led to a fundamental problem I have with the idea of cable: sure, you get a couple of channels that you want, but you also get a bunch more channels that you don't and have to pay for them in the meantime. I will never watch Polaris or Galavision (unless, of course, they get the rights to EPL soccer), so don't make me pay for it!
There's been some talk for years about a 'pick-and-pay' cable system, but it's never really taken off, mostly because groups as diverse as minorities (concerned about diversity) to religious broadcasters (worried that their stuff won't be selected) to ESPN (realizing with dread that if people knew the real cost of subscribing to them many would not) would fight it to the death. Every once in awhile the idea is proposed again, but cable companies know that this would kill their bottom line and so nothing like this will ever get done.
But still we can dream here in blogland. I got to thinking today while mowing the yard in a hundred degree heat about an entertainment company I would start if I had a few billion and could nullify most of the existing laws and agreements. It's called 'Fairgrounds Entertainment', conjuring up an idea about this being fair, but also the memory we have of buying a la carte tokens when we go to county fairs. Pay one token for a kiddie ride, but if you want to go big and ride the screamer that costs you five.
So here's how it would work, if a pick-and-pay system will never happen here: let's say for $50 you get a hundred tokens of value. You can't buy less, ensuring that the cable company gets something and making it where you have to buy at least a certain value number of channels. But with that hundred tokens you can choose what you want. Want to go cheap? There's El Rey for a single token! Willing to spend a little bit more to make the tweens happy? You can get a month of Nickelodeon for three tokens! And if you really want to splurge, you can buy each of the ESPNs for 10 apiece.
Companies can decide how many tokens they want to charge. If they have a high opinion of their network, they can charge as much as they want...but then will face the consequences of not having a lot of subscribers. Companies more interested in volume and increasing their market share can each get for a buck. Over time companies can lower or raise their cost, knowing that whatever they do will in turn affect their subscription rate. This really is the free market at its best; my old economics professors would combust in their Adam Smith-ness if they could see this happen.
Because here's the catch: every month consumers can re-choose what they want to buy by logging onto their account and switching up their lineup. Choice rules everything. No longer interested in AMC now that Mad Men and Breaking Bad are gone? That's four tokens to spend elsewhere. Want a month of watching the Copa Del Rey soccer tournament on BeIN sports for three tokens apiece? Sounds great! Again, this seems to be the dream of the free market at its best: cable channels that are good get selected for a fair price; cable channels no longer worth watching or who make the mistake of taking the easy buck by cramming in lots of infomercials get dumped. It's that easy.
If 100 tokens are not enough, there can be more variations than your simple 100 token package, but this will continue to be the minimum. Want to add another 50 tokens for $20? Sounds good. Look into 'bundling options' that some channels are teaming up to do (e.g. Oxygen, Lifetime, and HGTV are available together for three months at 10 tokens a month rather than their normal cost of 4 tokens each)? We can do that too. Rival channels running at discounts in order to get market share (getting Fox Sports and NBC Sports and the MLB channel at the same price as ESPN)? It's a TV wonderland!
The downside of this idea (beyond the fact that cable companies will never, EVER let Congress allow this to happen) is that bad channels will quickly go bankrupt. And in truth you won't get as many channels as you get now, and likely most people would be too lazy to ever change their channels monthly. I'm not really sure Americans could handle this much freedom.
But still, we can dream. If you love nothing but news you could get your fill of the cable news and financial channels. If you love sports, you could have a whole package of nothing but ESPN and Fox Sports and a ton of other channels. Networks could even get involved, though it would be hilarious when many of them are rudely awakened that not many people would pay half their tokens for a whole morning of Today and Jerry Springer.
Because I a)will never have the money to do this and b)do not have the business acumen to do this anybody who wants to steal this idea is more than welcome to do so. My only request is that I get extra tokens at least a couple of times a year...
