Friday, August 7, 2015

Post-Bundling -- Packaging Better TV/Video Value Propositions with 20-20 Hindsight


[SEE UPDATES AT END 
WSJ report on cost, viewership,
Disney's ESPN moving in this direction?

"Risk-Free" Subscriptions to The Celestial Jukebox?]

The increasing shift from bundles of TV channels to Over the Top (OTT) and "a la carte" -- or at least "skinny bundles" or re-configurable bundles -- has raised cheers and fears -- and now a broad stock market decline -- but I suggest we should be thinking about a different kind of "post-bundling" future.

The answer is for bundles to become dynamic, and on-demand -- not post-bundling as in after bundles go away, but post-bundling as in defining bundles after the viewing. Alfalfa, one of "Our Gang" comedies' "Little Rascals" had the answer in 1936: "Pay As You Exit."

This may seem strange, but think about it. What sense does it make for me to choose ahead of time what channels I want to be able to watch in a given month? Does Spotify ask me to choose what record labels I will want to listen to? How would I know?

This also bears on the broader migration from pay TV networks on cable and satellite, to OTT services like Netflix, as given new immediacy by this week's market sell-off of traditional TV companies. Still more broadly, this idea of post-pricing and post-bundling can be beneficial for almost any kind of content aggregation, as expanded on below.

What I propose is that TV/video distributors let viewers select a special post-bundled plan that offers "run of house" access to all available programming, and then applies bundled package rate discounts to that month's viewing -- after the viewer household has made its choices, program by program. Note that this differs from simple "a la carte" which charges a non-discounted rate for a given channel or program. (It has been suggested that a la carte will actually raise costs to consumers, but that does not reflect the idea that a sensible a la carte plan should include package discounts.*) It also differs from skinny or changeable bundles, which still must be pre-set in advance, even if easily changed from month to month. The idea is to apply quantity discounts, much like in current bundling, but do it in a way that lets viewers choose what to watch with a minimum of constraints.

Such a scheme can give viewers full choice, match that with appropriate levels of billing, and open up a whole world of programming that has been walled off. It may hurt some programmers who have gotten a monopoly benefit by locking in a channel slot, but will help programmers who are able to find a public, without being arbitrarily gated by the distribution system.

This can be done with conventional pricing methods, but can be far more effective with the more flexible, value-based FairPay model described in this blog, as explained further below.

Busting the dam of bundling

Channel bundling is a historical accident, based on the fact the cable and satellite TV distribution systems could only carry a limited number of channels, and had no on-demand capability. The distributor had to allocate those channels well in advance to match demand. Furthermore, it was impractical to charge consumers based on programs watched, so prices were for unlimited viewing of a bundle of channels.  Since different households had different viewing habits and budgets, a range of bundles were offered at different price levels, and with some flexibility as to which channels were in the bundle.

None of that makes sense in our new world of Internet-based TV, where any program can be provided on demand. It remains a knotty problem for the economics of distributors and TV programming networks, but that too shall pass. They have resisted fiercely, but the dam seems to be breaking as a growing list of incumbent players test the waters or consider it.

Similar issues apply in a somewhat different form to OTT SVOD "channels" like Netflix and Hulu -- see my post "Beyond the Deadweight Loss of 'All You Can Eat' Subscriptions." Hints at the turbulence resulting from the busting of the dam, even for these OTT services, is provided in a VideoNuze article, "Why SVOD Services Are At Risk Of Being Downgraded by Consumers to Transactional VOD," showing how our current business models just do not make sense, and concluding:
All of this underscores how uncertain things are for everyone in the TV and video ecosystem. In our Uber-crazed world, consumers are being trained to expect services on-demand and pay only for what is valued and used. Continuously fine-tuning their video services for those actually being watched will become the norm, a huge departure from the traditionally inert world of pay-TV subscriptions. [emphasis added]
Simple Post-bundling

The idea is simple. Let viewers pay for what they use, and do it in a sensible way that corresponds to the value they get. Current bundles (regular or skinny) do not do that, a la carte does not do that (not without discounts), and flat-rate SVOD does not do that. Viewing is irregular and unpredictable -- the only way to determine its value is after it is logged.

Instead of selecting a bundle from a menu beforehand, we need to be able to consume dim sum-syle, and then see what we used, and then price that with an aggressive discount schedule (unlike simple dim sum). A simplistic un-discounted dim sum at a la carte prices would be overpriced, and consumers will fear running up unexpectedly high charges. But it is easy to do better, with discount tiers for various levels of viewing, and for various mixes of premium content.
  • Pricing should factor in not only which channels were viewed, but how many shows (and maybe even which ones). 
  • Tiered plans could give prices similar to current bundles, but with the flexibility to dynamically alter the bundle. 
  • Usage factors could reasonably be set so a bundle of many lightly viewed channels might cost no more than a bundle of a few heavily viewed channels. 
  • A degree of usage related pricing would better track to value.  That could limit the cord-cutting of light viewers, and obtain fair increases in revenue from heavy viewers (with price caps to maintain affordability). 
  • Consumers could be alerted when they approach various budget thresholds, so they need not fear nasty surprises. 
FairPay post-bundling

Even greater tracking to value -- and consumer friendliness -- can be obtained with the FairPay cooperative pricing process (see overview). This provides greater flexibility in matching the value proposition to the consumer, and in protecting the consumer from pricing shocks to their budget.
  • With FairPay, the distributor can propose prices for the past month based on a post-bundling discount schedule, but the consumer has leeway to soften the effect of spikes due to high usage (in terms of number or type of programs viewed). 
  • The distributor balances this consumer power by determining whether the consumer is being fair over the life of the relationship, and the ability to revoke the FairPay privilege of those who are consistently not fair enough, sending them back to conventional set-pricing plans for their future viewing. 
  • Since there is little actual cost to short periods of unfairly low pricing, this serves to grow a larger and more loyal customer base, while weeding out those found not to pay fairly for the value they receive.
Why subscribe to channels?

As the VideoNuze article points out, subscribing to channels makes no sense in an on-demand world. This actually applies to both cable channels and OTT services, since either way, a la carte pricing threatens their survival.
  • Traditionally, channels got viewer revenue by being packaged in cable/satellite systems. Post-bundling can readily apply there, administered by the distributor. Some long tail channels that enjoyed subsidies in excess of their value will have to retarget their production models, but those that had no channel slots could find new life in a more open post-bundling world.
  • For OTT, free-standing long tail services will find it hard to justify $5-10 per month from more than a small cadre of dedicated viewers. But aggregators like Netflix and Hulu can make them accessible to an entire world of viewers. 
  • Even high-end channels will find the going tough. Is CBS really worth $5.99/month? To some maybe, but to most people, probably not -- not once every other channel tries to get a fixed slice of our wallet.
  • And even Netflix should move on from its one-size-fits-all model. Holding its fees to a set $8.99/month means it cannot offer much premium content (nor can it appeal to those on very low budgets) -- sooner or later that inflexibility will become a real problem -- and the spotty availability of prime movies already is a problem. With flexible post-bundling, Netflix could afford to offer all of CBS, HBO, ESPN, etc., and a full catalog of movies. Netflix should be the Spotify of video!  

The very idea of a long tail channel becomes questionable -- their curation model must shift from a channel (24 hours of content) to a brand (a continuing supply of desirable content, maybe less continuous, but well curated).

Content wants to be free  ...as in free speech, not free beer

This is the whole new value proposition of the Internet age -- its an "inter-network," remember! Content providers keep trying to wall-off their content (in "walled gardens"), but the manifest destiny of the Internet keeps breaking those walls down. Post-bundling is the pricing model for the Internet age, the age of the Celestial Jukebox. Why can't we access anything we think we will value, and then pay a fair price for whatever that turned out to be? This obviously applies to music (Spotify) and why not news, magazines, books, etc. An earlier post explained how a similar form of post-bundling could expand the market for travel guides, such as when taking a multi-country cruise to one city (=program) in each of several countries that were each covered in different guidebooks (=channels).

The Celestial TV Jukebox

It is time for TV/video providers to embrace the new consumer-driven on-demand world. I don't care if I watch my programs from CBS or HBO or Showtime or Netflix -- I care about watching specific programs. Channels are no longer "channels." They are simply content brands that I may come to have some interest and trust in. Why should I buy a "channel" and pay for programs I don't watch?

It is time to think about the answer Alfalfa found: "Pay As You Exit" -- bundle in arrears -- post-bundle. Finding the right way to do that will take some experimentation, and be disruptive to the incumbent networks and distributors, but the sooner we get started, the sooner we will find our way out of the wilderness to reach the land of milk and honey. It seems clear that some of the incumbents have begun to take this sea change seriously, and this week's wake-up call in the stock market adds evidence that we are approaching an inflection point.

[More on post-pricing and value-based strategies in this newer post: Finding Value in The Subscription Economy]

====================================
*The analysis of a la carte pricing in the Barro NYTimes article, Irwin's follow-up, and in Wikipedia, seems flawed not only by ignoring the role of volume discounting, but also by assuming that the technology of pay TV distribution will continue unchanged. Barro says that channelized distribution argues for bundles:
Think of it this way: If I put my bag in an overhead luggage bin, you can’t put your bag in the same spot, so it makes sense to charge me personally for my use. But if I watch Bravo, that doesn’t stop anyone else from watching the same show. When a good is “nonrivalrous” like a cable signal, giving it to me doesn’t stop anyone else from using it or add production costs at the margin. In those cases, it can make sense to throw lots of stuff into one package, whether or not I’ll actually use it.
But that is obsolete technology. It may take time to change over, but cable operators already send a mix of TV channels along with a separate Internet stream down the same pipe to our cable modems -- that can carry any channels desired, as it now does for OTT services like Netflix. (Even the "cable TV" channels now use Internet Protocol in their dedicated channel slots.) As I pointed out in a 2006 post, cable operators can shift capacity between these pipes, and they continue to gradually increase the capacity of the Internet pipe. With some simple equipment changes their plant can shift to all IPTV, with no fixed channels. (Doing that system-wide will take some time and money, but not that much.) So the technical reason that made bundling economical is now disappearing.

The skeptics also point to the psychic cost of being nickel-and-dimed, but there are ways to counter that as well. I suggest that post bundling goes a long way toward softening that, and the even softer post-bundling of FairPay makes that even more comfortable.

As to the more fundamental economics, a recent WSJ article puts it plainly: "Selling packets of channels to subscribers once made sense, but not so much anymore." It makes even less sense once you think about post-bundled packaging discounts.

====================================

[UPDATE 4/2/19:  See this generalization and expansion, 
"Risk-Free" Subscriptions to The Celestial Jukebox?

[UPDATE 8/30/18: The Information reports on "AT&T's Plans for Changing TV"]

The Information published a very interesting interview with AT&T Communications CEO John Donovan that shows movement toward the more value-based pricing that I am suggesting. I commented there:
Looks like it takes a telcom guy to realize the TV industry biz model has no clothes!
"The existing television business is hugely lucrative because channel owners get paid regardless of who watches." The telcom industry has long known that flat-rate subscriptions are economically inefficient for everyone, and consumers can be happier with usage based models when done with "the customer value proposition" in mind.
I don't agree that mid-range bundles need to be ad-subsidized if they are smartly usage based (all levels could be, if desired to reduce costs -- or not). What Donovan calls "engagement pricing" I would view as volume-discounted usage pricing, and would design pricing to map to the value of whatever usage level that is. To do that, apply what I call "post-bundling" -- let the user watch whatever they want, and price it based on what they actually watched -- with a discounted price that corresponds to that specific mass-customized bundle -- after the distributor and the customer both know just what it is for that month. Details are in my post, “Post-Bundling – Packaging Better TV/Video Value Propositions with 20-20 Hindsight” [this post]
---
[UPDATE 3/22/17:  WSJ report on cost, viewership]

This perverse economics of TV channel-based models for costing and pricing continues to grow as a problem for both legacy cable businesses and upstart OTT providers -- and the content providers who supply them. Today's WSJ article title and subtitle drive this home: "Small Cable Channels You Pay for—but Don’t Watch—Are Dying. But don’t expect your bill to decrease as networks go away."

This report points out how dramatically the cost per viewer varies. with rarely-watched channels like Fox Sports 2 and MTV Classic costing many thousands of dollars per year per viewing household, compared to a median of $699 (and of course the more highly viewed cost outlier, ESPN at $3,885, for its barely over 2 million viewers). Some of the channels are nothing but reruns! What a waste! Some channels have made a killing on this, but it is time the industry got its house in order, and moved on to provide real value at a fair price.

There is a constant drumbeat of news reports on the decline of pay-TV bundles, and of the difficulties faced by the growing number of skinny bundles.

When will the industry move beyond all of these silly bundles? We don't need no stinking bundles! What we need is value-based pricing for what customers actually watch.

[More Updates:

41 comments:

  1. This is a brilliant idea! Wow. I'm not sure how this would play out, but it sounds like a great plan to keep consumers engaged!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. it was a wonderful chance to visit this kind of site and I am happy to know. thank you so much for giving us a chance to have this opportunity.. best-80-85-inch-tvs-reviews

    ReplyDelete
  4. Walter White (performer Bryan Cranston - the father from Malcolm in the Middle) essentially is a secondary school science educator determined to have terminal lung tumor going entrepreneurial to sufficiently collect cash for his family.bigbrotherhoh

    ReplyDelete
  5. LCD televisions are television sets that utilization LCD innovation, much the same as in the PC LCD screens, tuned up for video and television show.Best 22 inch tvs

    ReplyDelete
  6. One preferred standpoint of a 50 inch, other than their greater size, is that they are ideal for rooms where the survey separate is around 12-16 ft away.Best 55 inch tvs

    ReplyDelete
  7. s a free to air Indian religious channel operated by Trinity Television. The Goal of Angel TV is to encourage viewers to make lifestyle changes that will foster physical, spiritual, and mental health through programs that present a refreshing change of pace. Best iptv service

    ReplyDelete
  8. I read Post and got it fine and informative. Please share more like that...
    sfs framing
    curtain wall insulation
    metsec cladding
    metsec sfs

    ReplyDelete
  9. The information you have posted is very useful. The sites you have referred was good. Thanks for sharing..
    sfs framing
    curtain wall insulation
    metsec cladding
    metsec sfs

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not a solitary second abandoned abandoning me in absolute shock.
    useful link

    ReplyDelete
  11. Customer Relation is the key-point of any business. Kanhasoft is crm software development company providing solutions to offshore clients. Our CRM developers build CRM system from the scratch to meet your business needs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. useful information on topics that plenty are interested on for this wonderful post.Admiring the time and effort you put into your b!.. Miami Videographer

    ReplyDelete
  13. IMO Beta APP has rivalry with the prevalent applications like Skype, Whatsapp and Viber. For every single applications have the low quality of the video calls, this can't fulfills the clients. Be imoforpc

    ReplyDelete
  14. IPTV has numerous points of interest over customary link, including fast web get to, video on interest, several station decisions, intelligent highlights, on-screen guest ID, and a lot more advantages that conventional link does not give.best iptv app

    ReplyDelete
  15. When it comes to helping customers in their activities and business, they give operational hole evaluations and administration observing. best quality iptv

    ReplyDelete
  16. I got this web page from my buddy who told me about this site and at the moment this time I am browsing this web page and reading very informative content here.
    Regards: Eve Hunt

    ReplyDelete
  17. That is the excellent mindset, is just not help to make every sence whatsoever preaching about that mather. Virtually any method many thanks in addition to i had endeavor to promote your own article in to delicius nevertheless it is apparently a dilemma using your information sites can you please recheck the idea. thanks once more.
    sfs framing
    curtain wall insulation
    metsec cladding
    metsec sfs

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info. age of empires game

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are heaps of games in this class to engage youngsters. A few instances of reproduction games are: Football Manager, Farming Simulator 2013, The Sims and Evil Genius.astroneer bytes cheat

    ReplyDelete
  20. These are only some great models why the vast majority like to download or purchase movies online. watch movies online

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you for any other informative site. Where else could I am getting that kind of
    info written in such a perfect approach? I’ve a undertaking that I’m just
    now running on, and I have been on the glance out for such
    information.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sanjay Precision Industries Leading Exporter of Tapes Threaded Coupler, Stainless Steel Threaded Parts, Turned Parts, Turned Parts, Brass Inserts and Sliding Head Machined Parts from Ghaziabad. Sanjay Precision provide the best turned components, brass pins, brass inserts, Machined Shafts, Gear Blank, etc. If you wants this kind of components then contact Sanjay Precision.

    Turned Bushes Manufacturers
    Machine Bush Manufactures
    Brass Pin Manufacturers
    Gear Blank Manufacturers

    ReplyDelete
  23. Now that’s what I call a tremendous blog. Beautifully written.
    Pinoybay

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi, there Guys Hope you are all doing Great and Fine!!
    I came across to IPTV websites and find out that it has information related to Best IPTV Subscription And
    I have to say that it was very good and valuable information.

    Give me suggestions. 

    Thanks a lot, guys for the help.

    ReplyDelete
  25. With that said, it is indeed a profitable venture to engage in movie-related businesses on the internet. gomovies

    ReplyDelete
  26. The absolute most energizing highlights on superstar amusement news destinations are the photos taken by paparazzi picture takers. The notoriety of these apparent irritating intruders is outstanding and they have even been called mosquitoes since they can be so irritating. koktale

    ReplyDelete
  27. Great job for publishing such a nice article. Your article isn’t only useful but it is additionally really informative. Thank you because you have been willing to share information with us. iptvsubscription is one of the Best Iptv Subscription Providers that offers affordable packages.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Now and again As Seen On TV products are sold in stores and some even have a section given to them. Individuals can remember them on the grounds that there will a specific logo on them.As Seen on TV

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here... Custom Packaging Boxes

    ReplyDelete
  31. I admire this article for the well-researched content and excellent wording. I got so involved in this material that I couldn’t stop reading. I am impressed with your work and skill. Thank you so much. Buy IPTV Subscription Online

    ReplyDelete
  32. - whether the tv antenna is active or passive, whether it is indoor or .... in case you live in a weak signal place, this amplifier may additionally help remedy any  best tv signal booster,

    ReplyDelete
  33. We are really grateful for your blog post. You will find a lot of approaches after visiting your post. I was exactly searching for. Thanks for such post and please keep it up. Great work. bulk cd duplication

    ReplyDelete
  34. An impressive share! I've just forwarded this onto a friend who has been doing a little research on this. And he actually bought me dinner because I found it for him... lol. So let me reword this.... Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending some time to talk about this topic here on your web page.
    Custom Stickers uk

    ReplyDelete