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.

While every customer service industry deserves intense scrutiny, many pundits have chosen cable as an easy target and use naive (and wrong) analyses to declare that consumers are somehow getting ripped off.

In a recent posting touting his new book, Gotcha Capitalism: How Hidden Fees Rip You Off Every Day and What You Can Do About It (accompanied of course by a web ad telling readers where they can buy the book), MSNBC Technology Correspondent Bob Sullivan jumps to a few erroneous conclusions that cry out for a response. While the juicy rhetoric in the column probably achieves Sullivan’s number one goal of selling more books, the juvenile analysis of why consumers are spending more for cable service today than a decade ago certainly fails Economics 101.

The simplest – and in fact true – explanation of why cable customers are spending more today is that they are subscribing to a video service that is dramatically different (and much better) than in 1998. Consider that in 1998, cable was an “analog” only service that offered 75 channels, period, end of story. Today, cable offers hundreds of channels in both analog and digital with high-definition, video on demand, digital video recorders and other interactive features that consumers love. And, besides a video package, millions of consumers now subscribe to cable’s “triple play” bundle which adds broadband Internet and digital phone service to their video package.

A great way to judge the value of a product is a simple “use vs. cost” analysis. That simple analysis for video service is something called Price Per Viewing Hour (PPVH) which measures how many hours a customer watches TV versus how much they pay for it. The good news for consumers is that cable’s PPVH decreased by 15.4% between 2001 and 2006…that is, the actual cost per hour of watching TV has dropped.

One more point — it’s ironic that Sullivan first complains about rising prices then later talks about the “addictive” power of cable. He claims this addictive power is somehow preventing consumers from exercising self control by subscribing to a different video provider. But 35 million consumers have broken through cable’s alleged mind trap because that is the number (steadily growing in fact) that now subscribe to one of the two national satellite video companies or the two telcos (Verizon and AT&T) that now are offering video service.

These facts may not make great headlines or sell many books, but consumers deserve to know the real story.

Right on the front page of NCTA’s website, down in the lower right corner, we run a little feature called “Statistic of the Week.” Since cable prices are always a hot topic, and since I’ve made some reference to the notions of price and value, I thought I’d highlight what we’ve run recently.

This week it was:

Cable’s PPVH decreased by 3.3% on a nominal basis between 2001 and 2006 and 15.4% on a real, or inflation -adjusted basis

And this was footnoted as follows:

[PPVH = Price Per Viewing Hour = the price of a cable subscription divided by the number of hours per month spent viewing basic cable networks]

Source: Average basic cable rates from SNL Kagan divided by average basic cable network viewing time from CAB

Fine. What the heck does this mean? It means that how much you watch cable television ought to be factored into price and value. Any discussion of cable prices ought to be put in context. NCTA doesn’t think that the nominal price is the most accurate measurement. It’s not like a loaf of bread or a carton of milk; over time the service that cable offers to customers changes and the way people use that service changes.

The FCC is quick to point out that the price per minute (which is a quantity-adjusted metric much like PPVH, the price paid divided by the amount consumed) of wireless service has been declining, yet the Commission fails to acknowledge or discuss PPVH. Consumers are paying more for wireless service and they are paying more for cable service, but they are also consuming (talking/viewing) more of both services too. They must be finding value and quality in each of these services.

As I mentioned in my first post, I’ve been a cable customer for most of my life. I pay more today than my parents paid back in the early Seventies. But I get a lot more channels, the programming is more diverse and is of a higher quality and I now spend more of my time tuned to more cable networks than I used to.

We sent a letter to the FCC a year ago. In it, NCTA’s President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow noted that today’s marketplace is quite dynamic and there are better ways to measure price:

Although it’s short-sighted to focus on video pricing alone, there are more obvious ways to measure prices that actually stand up to scrutiny. It is useful for consumers and policymakers to know whether price increases are or are not accompanied by corresponding increases in the quantity and quality of the service or goods being sold. That’s why it is important to analyze prices not only on an inflation-adjusted basis but also on a quality-adjusted basis.

One way is to simply measure the price per channel as the FCC has done for some time. And the data clearly show that the real price per channel over ten years has gone down, not up.

He also talks about PPVH and you can read the whole thing for yourself. I’d also recommend looking at this study by Professor Steven S. Wildman of Michigan State University. He argued that the “real (inflation-adjusted) price of cable service divided by the number of hours spent watching basic cable programming” was a good way of measuring prices. If you pay 10 bucks for service and watch 10 hours, then you paid a buck an hour. If you pay 20 bucks and watch 60 hours, then you paid 33 cents an hour.

FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin spoke today at CES and did a Q&A with Gary Shapiro, President & CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association. In his remarks, he talked about the coming Digital Transition, confirming that the “hard date” continues to be set in stone.

Actually, he remarked on a number of issues, but I’d like to zero in on comments he made towards the end of the session. The question of cable prices was raised and Chairman Martin reiterated remarks he has made on other occasions. He spoke of the increase in cable prices, which he characterized as too high, and said that “I’m doing everything I can” to increase competition, which he sees as a panacea. He said that prices in “almost every area” had decreased, although the examples he gave were from telephony and data services.

Gee whiz, where to begin?

Cable services, cell phone services. Apples, oranges. That’s one objection. Just to pick one aspect, the rise in prices is driven, in part, by increases in programming costs. A cell phone call isn’t going to ask for a salary bump next season.

Or maybe I should point out that comparing today’s prices with those of 1996 is a little goofy, given the small analog offering of ten years ago and today’s bundle of digital, high definition, and video-on-demand. There’s a factsheet on the NCTA website which compares 1995 to 2005 and finds that consumers were getting more channels, watching more cable programming and getting more value for their dollar.

This fits in with another good piece of research by Professor Steven S. Wildman of Michigan State University. He argued that the “real (inflation-adjusted) price of cable service divided by the number of hours spent watching basic cable programming” was a good way of measuring prices. If you pay 10 bucks for service and watch 10 hours, then you paid a buck an hour. If you pay 20 bucks and watch 60 hours, then you paid 33 cents an hour.

NCTA has also pointed out that cable’s bundle of video, high-speed Internet and voice service costs 23 percent less than ten years ago. Chairman Martin argues that a mandatory a la carte scheme will save money, but there’s plenty of evidence that suggests just the opposite.

Let’s just say we disagree and let it go at that.