Stories come and go in both the general media landscape and the blogosphere, but often the same issues remain on the radar, but driven by different players and events.

For example, recently we’ve seen coverage of the Hulu-Boxee affair, the possible launch of online video platforms by cable operators such as Comcast & Time Warner and the “trend” of cord-cutting (getting all your video online). In addition, we regularly see many bloggers complain that the cable industry won’t launch “a la carte” options, so that subscribers can buy channels one at a time.

All of the coverage can be summed up thusly: “I think cable programming costs too much.” It also seems to me that this is a reflection of the dominant attitude found online: All content should be free or priced very low. But what people really mean, whether they realize it or not, is that they don’t like cable’s current business model. Every suggested solution – let customers buy one channel at a time, cable programmers should give their shows away for free on the Internet – would disrupt the current business model.

What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Newspaper Business?

Many industries have had their business models disrupted in recent years; one example is the newspaper industry. The Chicago Journalism Town Hall recently took place and some observers came away with the notion that the way for print journalism to survive is to adopt the cable business model.

This is an ironic reversal, because it appears that cable’s model was built on that of newspapers and magazines, which generally depend on a dual revenue stream of subscription fees and advertising. Print media are currently grappling with the best way to deal with the Internet and whether it pays to give away your content for free online.

Daniel Sinker on Huffington Post pointed out that an iTunes “a la carte” model might prove to be very bad for news organizations. (In fairness, he also suggests that saving journalism might mean tearing down the established order.)

The Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn expressed his own concerns:

… until a few months ago… I believed that large news organizations could thrive online by using the TV/radio broadcast model—by making it difficult to enjoy content without being confronted with advertising messages.

But for a variety of reasons, this model doesn’t seem to work for online news, particularly in this economy. Newspapers can and do make money with Web advertising, just not enough to make up for the declines in print advertising.

I’m now a believer in the cable TV model. News organizations that generate significant original content should band together for their own survival and sell group subscription packages for unlimited access to their stories, photos, videos, archives and other offerings.

Mark Cuban summed it up in the title of his blog post: How Cable & Satellite Can Save the Newspaper Business. Cuban argues that selling content “a la carte” is a difficult business venture and suggests that newspapers partner with cable and satellite providers to offer exclusive access to content.

Now, I don’t know if these solutions are the correct ones to save print media. And it’s highly likely that the cable model will change at some point. The correct answer doesn’t seem to be clear to anyone. Some print outlets give away their content for free. Some put parts of their content online, but require you to buy the print version to get the bulk of it. Some have suggested that non-profit journalism is the correct path. Some companies are experimenting with various models.

This is true of other businesses, since cable programmers are in the same position of experimenting with a variety of approaches.  Right now, they primarily rely on a mix of subscription fees from cable operators and advertising revenue. As I’ve noted previously, in an “a la carte” world, both of these revenue streams would be dramatically affected. It’s highly probable that this business model will change over time, but right now, mandatory “a la carte” would probably have a very bad effect on your viewing choices.

Cable’s Sinister Plot?

Just recently, Time Warner’s CEO Jeff Bewkes discussed a plan called “TV Everywhere,” that would put all cable programming on the Web, but only accessible to consumers who are already subscribed to a multichannel video service, whether from cable, DBS or a telco company.

And what were the headlines? “Time Warner CEO Plans ‘TV Everywhere’ — But Not For Everyone.” “Time Warner’s Bewkes Plots To Eradicate Free Content.” “Cable Tries To Stuff The Internet Video Genie Back In The Bottle.”

Yes, the cable cabal’s dark & sinister plan to not give its content away for free…

What I’m really trying to do is express my frustration at seeing coverage like this.  The headlines could have been just as easily written in reverse.  “Cable Expands Online Content for Subscribers” Or, “Cable Subs to See Expansion of Content Online Content.”  And then there’s, “The Bundle gets Bigger; Cable Adds Content Online.”

I hope I’ve made my point that the business of online content is a little more complex than it might first appear to be.  And new online content, available on demand for those who are already paying the freight, could be just the jumpstart that the online world needs.

For some time, I’ve been noting on my Twitter account the rising tide of people who have decided to cut the cord that ties them to servicing their television needs through cable, satellite or other wired means, instead turning to the Internet to be informed and entertained.  The topic is blowing up now, with Washington Post tech columnist Mike Musgrove now examining the issue in his column this past weekend (“TV Breaks Out of the Box“).

And I don’t even really need to respond, because Adam Thierer has given it the one-two punch at Tech Liberation Front.

• Cutting the (Video) Cord, Part 2
• We Don’t Need to Mandate “a la Carte”… It Already Exists

But if you want my take on the cost-savings of broadband video, refer to these earlier posts:

• The Roles of TV and the Internet
• Does A La Carte Always Make Sense?
• More Media Inaccuracies About A La Carte

On a related note, TV Week‘s Daisy Whitney writes about using the Boxee service to watch Internet video on her television, as part of a cable-free experiment she’s conducting.

The Golden Swamp blog comments on Musgrove’s column by noting that more people watched Tina Fey’s portrayal of Sarah Palin online than on television, and suggests than one could then unbundle one chunk of content (such as a Palin skit) from an entire television episode (a 90-minute SNL). Judy Breck is using this approach to propose unbundling educational resources; others have applauded the ability of iTunes to allow you to buy just the songs you want instead of the whole album (David Lazarus called it the “iPod factor.”).

But as I have written on this blog in regards to “a la carte,” the economics may not pay off. If you unbundle one cable network from others, the economics change. Unbundle one show from a network, they change again. Unbundle a segment from the show, again.  That’s not to say that cable networks don’t or shouldn’t repurpose content. Comedy Central puts entire episodes of The Daily Show online for free. Some cable networks make content available to mobile subscribers or put clips on their websites. I’m simply offering a reminder that there are different approaches and different business models; not everything you want may be available on the platform you want and in the manner you want.

But things change and nothing is permenant. Stay tuned.

There was a column in the L.A. Times yesterday from David Lazarus entitled: “Let’s pay only for the TV we watch.” So, once again, back we go to the topic of “a la carte” cable service.

I get it. It feels like much of the content world is going to a pay-only-for-what-you-want model. Certainly, it feels right emotionally to only pay for the stuff you’re going to use. But this argument is almost always predicated on one premise: If I could pick and choose, my bill would go down.

Lazarus writes:

The average U.S. home now receives a record 118.6 TV channels, according to a recent report from Nielsen Co. But the dirty little secret of the cable industry is that the average subscriber watches only about 17 channels regularly.

That’s more than 100 channels that most cable subscribers are paying for but seldom if ever watching.

Because of the number of cable systems nationwide, it’s hard to get a fix on the average monthly bill. But many estimates place this figure at $60 to $70.

This means, if all channels cost the same, the typical cable subscriber is spending about $9 a month for the 17 channels he wants to watch and about $55 for the 101 channels he never sees.

There are big problems with the figures here, so let’s break it down.

If you’re getting 118.6 channels, that means you’re getting digital cable service, because analog can’t deliver that many. SNL Kagan estimates that the current average monthly price for digital service is $59.23 (expanded basic is $44.28), which not only provides a wide range of programming but also opens up the door to high-definition and Video on Demand.

The first important point that Lazarus overlooks is that the average cable subscriber has elected to switch from a cheaper level of service with fewer channels, in order to take a more expensive level of service with more options. Perhaps people like the greater choice that comes with digital?

For example, Cablevision recently reported that more than 90% of its video customers subscribe to digital service, which means that 9 out of 10 of its customers want more channels, not fewer. If you look at the largest cable operator, Comcast, you find that 69% of its video customers elect to subscribe to digital service. Industry-wide, approximately 62% of cable’s video customers have made the decision to receive more channels via digital service.

Lazarus continues:

But all channels don’t cost the same amount. By most accounts, the sports channel ESPN is one of the most expensive carried by cable systems, costing by some estimates more than $3 a month per subscriber. Many other channels are said to cost as little as 25 cents monthly.

I never watch ESPN. When I watch TV, it’s usually CNN, CNBC or a movie channel. On an a la carte basis, I could probably get the handful of channels I like for pocket change.

That, of course, is not what the cable industry wants.

Lazarus leaves out all of the relevant content here. Those figures he cites are carriage fees that cable operators pay programmers in order to carry those services and offer them to their customers (The real rates are found in private contracts; actual figures will vary by company and circumstances). It’s not what those networks “cost” and it’s not a reflection of what you would be charged in an a la carte world.

He also writes:

According to the FCC, average cable rates nationwide more than doubled over the last 10 years.

In fact, the FCC has not released any reports containing this information. There have been statements in the media to this effect, but the Commission has not released any reports to back up this assertion. It is irrelevant to compare today’s rates to the rates from more than ten years ago, since the nature and value of that service has changed over that same time-frame, but it is worth noting that over the last several years, the increases in cable rates have actually lagged behind inflation rates.

Read this post for the financial details, but the short version is that if each network lost the carriage they have now and then had to market and sell the channel to individual consumers, revenue goes down, operating costs go up and programming quality probably also goes down.  And the price you think you’ll pay for individual channels on an a la carte basis? You’re probably grossly underestimating it. The reason why you should pay for more than you watch is that it beats paying more to have fewer options.

Lazarus writes that cable needs to be brought “in line with the wholesale shift in how consumers now approach entertainment.” But different distribution outlets have different pricing models. If you saw Iron Man in the theaters, you probably paid ten bucks. The DVD is probably $20. Buy it on iTunes for $15 or watch it on VOD for $5. As I’ve written previously, different businesses operate on different models and it’s a mistake to assume they should all be the same.

Lazarus makes a comment early on about knowing “as a newspaperman” a little something about “outdated business model[s].” The print edition of his newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, is not sold on an a la carte basis, with the option of buying just the sports section or the business section. They did experiment a few years ago with putting their online entertainment section behind a wall and then charging a subscription fee for access. They later ended the experiment. The New York Times did something similar with its TimesSelect service. In these instances, the free market determined their actions, not regulation. Business models change over time and the models of the cable industry will undoubtedly do so as well.

If you look at the comments of this column, you’ll find some other reasons given why mandatory a la carte would probably be problematic. You could also check out some of Mike Masnick’s posts at Techdirt, such as here, here or here.

We can only repeat ourselves on a la carte so many times before our heads burst in frustration. I think we’re one or two posts away from that point, so this may be my last word on the subject.

But first, let me explain the reason for my frustration. Rob Pegoraro, the gadget guy at the Washington Post, has an article up about beating the high costs of high tech in a slow economy.  In it he extols what he believes to be the virtues of a) Internet video and b) a la carte TV.

You can also turn your broadband connection into your TV service. The networks offer free streaming video of most shows at their own sites and such third-party portals as Hulu, and you can buy shows at Amazon’s upgraded video-on-demand service and Apple’s iTunes Store.

You may find that these options permit you to chop down your TV service to a cheaper bundle — or, if your tastes line up, drop it entirely in favor of free, over-the-air digital broadcasts. The Web can become the a la carte programming bundle that TV service providers refuse to sell you, greatly reducing your monthly costs. And in the process, you can help teach the cable and satellite folks that we’d like that choice.

Pegoraro deserves credit for trying to help consumers manage their pocketbook in tough economic times, but a la carte is one idea that makes a good bumper sticker slogan (after all, who isn’t for more choice?) but actually would end up costing most consumers more.

First, Pegoraro suggests that you get your broadcast programming online via video portals.  This is impractical on a number of fronts not the least of which is the fact that broadcast television is free over the air.  Suggesting that you pay for broadband service to watch free TV is sort of odd – especially in an article about cutting costs.

Second, he suggests you may greatly “reduce your monthly costs”.  But is that true? For most consumers, probably not.  Let’s assume you are what Nielsen describes as a “TV user”.  On average, TV users watch a bit more than 127 hours of TV per month.  Most television programs sold through iTunes or Amazon’s Unbox run $1.99 per program whether it’s a 30 minute or a one hour program.  If your tastes run to sit-coms or home improvement shows, you’ll be paying about $4 an hour.  If you’re the TV user consuming 127 hours a month, your bill just jumped to more than $500.

If your thing is one-hour dramas, you can cut that down to about $250.

Your monthly expanded basic cable package runs you about $60.

Think of it this way:  If you’re a single person living alone, and you don’t watch all that much TV, web content in a consumption-based billing model may work for you and save a few dollars.  If you’re married, and have to worry about what two people watch, your costs start to rise dramatically.  He’s watching episodes of Eureka and Battlestar Galactica.  She’s watching Miami Ink and The Daily Show.  They both watch Deadliest Catch and South Park.  Those are just the cable favorites.  Throw in Chuck, Dirty Sexy Money, CSI and Law and Order (all 94 different versions) and you’re talking a lot of scratch for even a handful of individual programs.  Now add in a couple of kids, and you’re off to the races.

Also, Pegoraro’s piece assumes that programs would cost the same in an a la carte world as they do now.  This ignores basic market forces.  The reason your program costs $1.99 the day (or the season) after its original air date is because the network made most of the production costs back on advertising during the original airing.

If people were to totally disconnect their TVs, and only consume on demand through iTunes and Unbox, programmers would still need to make up the money they lost with no advertising during the original run.  That $2 program today may become a $5 (or more) program tomorrow.  When you’re suddenly paying $100 or more for a season of your favorite show, it might lose its luster.

The fact is a la carte has been weighed, measured, and come up wanting.  Study after study has determined that for most people costs go up, not down, in an a la carte model.  If you watch very little TV, you might see some reduction.  But based on Nielsen’s numbers, people are watching more, not less, TV.

In the last few months, a number of blogs have written about “a la carte” consumption of content as a cost-savings measure. In these tough economic times, managing your entertainment and information budget is certainly a good idea. But much of the discussion I’ve seen fails to note that this approach isn’t going to work for everyone.

For example, in early June the I Will Teach You To Be Rich blog argued in favor of cutting down on unneeded subscriptions: “Instead of paying for a ton of channels you never watch on cable, buy only the episodes you watch for $1.99 each off iTunes.” (Also see the discussion of this tactic on Lifehacker.) You also often see people talking about how little cable television they watch.

• The Short Bus: “After all, I only watch about 5 or 6 channels – none of them are a major network.”
• jetdawgg at Leatherneck.com forum: “Frankly, the only Time-Warner channel I REALLY want is Turner Classic Movies. Maybe a couple others.”

I’ve also seen people argue that they only watch a couple of cable series. And if you’re a low-level consumer of such content, perhaps this makes sense. More and more television programming is available online, either as free streaming video or available for purchase on an a la carte basis via services such as iTunes or Unbox. Some have asked if Apple TV could be a replacement. As the supply of broadband video grows, the theory goes, consumers can turn to an online supply of a la carte video to satisfy their needs, saving money at the same time.

So, let’s run some numbers. According to estimates from SNL Kagan, the Average Monthly Price for Expanded Basic Programming Packages (2007 estimate) was $42.76. You can buy some television programs on iTunes for $1.99. Once you’ve purchased 21 or so shows at two bucks a pop, you’ve now matched the price of expanded basic cable service. At that rate, you could watch one show each weekday night, but you’ll have to take the weekends off. But if you want to watch more than that, then subscribing to cable makes more sense.

Another measurement is to take the average basic cable rates from SNL Kagan and divide it by average basic cable network viewing time from the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau to obtain the Average Price Per Viewing Hour, which was 24.5 cents in 2006 (see an explanation of PPVH here). Since a typical hour drama can be purchased on iTunes for $1.99 – which makes their Price Per Viewing Hour about 8 times more. Keep in mind that a half-hour show also costs $1.99, making the PPVH for fare like Family Guy and South Park even higher.

Naturally, there are a couple of built-in assumptions to the a la carte argument: how little TV you will watch and how much cable programming you can get online. A recent Nielsen report on TV, Internet and Mobile usage found that the average American is watching 127 hours, 15 minutes per month. To watch that amount of video at $1.99 per hour would cost more than $250 per month. And if half of those shows were half-hour sitcoms (also at $1.99) the monthly bill would come in at $380. The people above who are quoted as watching so little television fall well below the average.

What’s interesting about the discussion of this topic is that there’s an assumption of how much video is watched online by consumers. Sure, there are certain groups who watch a ton of video online and watch little, if any, cable TV. But that Nielsen study found that Americans are not only using the Internet more, but are watching even more television. You might think this doesn’t apply to young people, but the Nielsen study says that 18-24 year olds are watching over 103 hours a month, and a recent study from Alloy Media + Marketing found that 38% of college students aren’t watching online video at all.

This is not to say that there’s not growth in broadband video. For example, 37 million episodes were watched on ABC.com’s video player during the month of May, or a total of 815 million minutes of full-length content.. There’s a good deal of broadcast programming online. But your local news isn’t available online. And while some cable programming is available, much of it is not. Will Richmond explored this issue and explained the importance of cable programmer’s dual revenue model.

Finally, the study of economics demonstrates that people’s mental states can affect their perception of this equation. You may think a subscription makes more sense because you pay once and get a lot. If you consume less than you think, a subscription approach might not be right for you. But when it comes to consuming television, consider your cell phone.

Remember a few years ago when cell phones were new? You got one and selected a simple plan, because you were only going to use the phone for emergencies. And then you got in the habit of using the device, because it’s so convenient, and then your bill went through the roof. Today, it’s smart to get a plan with a lot of hours or unlimited texting or some other pricing system that’s economical. Similarly, if you truly only watch a very small amount of cable TV, and if your favorite program is available in some other form, then it might make sense to purchase your video programming by episode. But if you watch an average amount of television, which is more than 4 hours a day according to Nielsen, then one of cable’s various packages (basic, expanded basic, digital, etc.) definitely makes more sense.

UPDATE:  I just noticed that this January post during CES touches on many of these same issues.