I'm not sure about other people but I don't "think" I want a la carte, I absolutely know I do. So much so that I don't pay for anything because nobody offers what I'm willing to pay for.
It's like saying that you'd be willing to pay for a $2/month Spotify subscription for only the genres of music you want. That's not how the economics work. Going a la carte would mean paying as much as a bundle, for less content.
The problem here is that people's mental models are fundamentally self-centered. They imagine paying half or less for just the channels they want.
But in total, that would mean media companies getting half or less the revenue, for producing the same content -- since the marginal cost of giving extra channels is basically zero, they don't gain any money back by giving you fewer channels. Now, media companies aren't that profitable, the math simply doesn't work out, they wouldn't be able to actually make all that content. Many channels would simply be cut.
Spotify pays artists based on the number of times their work is played, so that comparison isn’t valid. Most people have no trouble paying $10/month for what they actually use - and if the $50/month for cable was divided similarly I’m sure there would be far less complaining.
Of course, broadcast technology doesn’t support that and we have decades of industry built around a different model, giving all of the incumbents a strong incentive to resist any sort of change.
>Going a la carte would mean paying as much as a bundle, for less content. //
You're arguing past people. Plenty have said they're fine paying the same or more for access to less content.
I used to watch about 2 shows a week on BBC (UK; 1-1.5hrs) and disagreed with paying £M to TV show presenters who just preside over long, talky adverts for Hollywood movies and mainstream media. So I don't pay (nor watch) anymore.
I'd pay to watch those couple of shows separately. As it happens though they occasionally make their way to Netflix, so I don't have to ... but I'd still pay to watch them when they're still current.
Looks to me like there's money left on the table.
Personally I'd like to see some form of legislation that requires shows to be made available to consumers if they are available to other channels - I could pay double to BBC what Netflix pay them to get the show and we'd both win; and I wouldn't mind having it on Netflix, might watch it again.
Now BBC is a special case; I can't work out why they need to compete commercially, nor why we allow showmakers to form companies to be paid through, etc.. they should work on salaried staff paid on civil service pay scales IMO.
> Plenty have said they're fine paying the same or more for access to less content.
Really? I haven't seen anyone say they want to pay more for less content. The unspoken assumption always seems to be "if I was getting fewer channels I'd be paying less", logic which works fine for tangible goods, but less so for ones with nearly zero marginal cost to produce.
I find it funny that people are arguing that you don't want this and actually want bundling services when you're flat out saying you aren't currently paying for what's being offered.
I don't even want a la carte, I'm fine with just "It's on Netflix/Hulu/HBO Max or I don't need to watch it." I'm not willing to pay more than $20 a month for TV most months, with the rare extra service to get caught up on a show I really like.
At least for me, I find that unlikely. I'm paying a fee for sports channels I have no interest in (because you can't not pay it), I'm buying a bundle that I only want a couple channels in, and those are the channels most people want. I would guess that I fall into the majority that are subsidizing the minority.
