There is a lot of commotion in the entertainment industry as we approach convergence. We have a broadcast industry that can’t seem to realize people care more about content and convenience than advertising messages, and a movie industry that can’t seem to adapt to new technologies, spouting 20 year old rhetoric over and over. There will be time to address those backwards views later, right now, my grip is with cable.
I live in a major metropolitan area, where I have cable from a very large national provider. I have 90 some odd channels, most of which I not only never watch, but I have actually programmed out of my Tivo (yes, I’m one of those). But what gets me, is that there is currently no way for me to get some additional channels (specifically the Food Network) that I do want, all the while my cable provider keeps trying to push digital cable so they can pump more and more advertising laden drivel down my throat. You know what? I think this would be a good time for cable companies to consider that, just possibly, less is more.
You see, I don’t want 150 channels. And I don’t want advertising. I pay for HBO, and do you know why? Not for the movies. I have DVDs for movies. I pay a monthly fee for HBO every month to see programming like the Sopranos, and more specifically, Six Feet Under. And do you know what? I would pay for other channels too, if the quality of programming were desirable, and my programs were presented commercial free. I’d probably pay the same (maybe even, gasp, more!) to the cable company if they offered a simple way for me to have, not 150 channels, but say 10-15 ala carte channels, of my choosing. My personal line-up would consist of:
* PBS
* HBO
* FOX (Just until the cancel The Simpsons)
* Cartoon Network
* Nickelodeon
* IFC
* Sundance Channel
* Food Network
* M2
* CNN
Yes, I would pay for each of these channels. I’d even pay 5.95 a month for each of them, which would actually increase my cable bill. I’m sure the economics of that don’t jive with the current broadcasting, advertising supported model of production. But here’s the best part, by continuing to support channels that produce quality programming, and ignoring vapid sitcoms, my money goes to reward the content I find valuable, rather than lowest common denominator content designed to hawk advertisers’ wares. I’m sure there are still many consumers that would pay to see Friends (someone has to be renting/buying those DVDs of the “Best of Friends” right?). Then my Tivo’s advertising skipping features become moot. I think this would reshape the overall broadcast and cable market, to provide highly specialized channels, which could charge accordingly for the interested community they would serve. There are details to be worked out, to be sure, but I am still convinced that a network could make a profit, and a considerable one, with this model; provided that they had content which a segment of the population found valuable, and they produced quality programming. The bottom line is that we don’t have this today because networks don’t produce quality programming. They aren’t interested in producing quality programming. They are simply creating vehicles for advertising, by lowest common denominator tactics to pursue desirable market demographics.
I have no problem with the broadcast industry crying over the loss of advertising dollars, but I think what the industry needs to realize is that the society in which we live is changing. Consumers are becoming more and more information savvy, and they value their time more and more each day. Instead of wasting all this effort fighting the growing movement of consumers who want content over advertising, or who want to be able to view shows on their own schedules, instead of a dictated schedule, why not put that effort into adopting business models that make sense for the golden age of information, and make some killer bucks in the process.