TiVO Survey Finds Current Skinny Bundles Too Bloated & Pricey A new study by TiVO indicates that cord cutters and cable subscribers alike still really like the idea of only paying for the channels they want to watch. The company's latest video trends report indicates that 77.5% of respondents to its survey want to pay for only the channels they watch, an idea otherwise known as "a la carte." The industry has traditionally argued that a la carte options will raise rates and kill off niche channels, but that's consistently happened anyway even under the existing model of bloated cable bundles.

And while TiVO's survey found that cable customers have tried to respond to consumer demand with so-called "skinny bundles" of less expensive channels, many of these offerings still provide too many channels -- at too high a cost -- for most survey participant's liking. Again, 77.5% only want to pay for the channels they like, and they don't want to pay much for it. According to the survey, the average price respondents want to pay for a package of self-selected channels is $28.79 total per month -- or $1.73 per channel per month. In many channel bundles, ESPN alone costs users an estimated $8 per month, and previous surveys have indicated that 56% would drop the channel if it meant an $8 reduction in their bill. “TiVo believes vMVPDs could leverage their data to create packages that reflect subscriber interests,” TiVo said in the study. “Instead of three or four skinny bundle packages where the main differentiation is the number of channels included, TiVo believes packages should be built based on interests or viewing behavior.” For example, the study argues that skinny bundles should be driven by consumer interest, with cable operators offering one option for sports fans, another option for kids, and another for film buffs. “While some channels would overlap, the overall packages would be much more tailored to the individual, returning to a true à la carte spirit,” TiVo said. We've also noted that while many of these skinny bundle offerings provide the illusion of value, the actual savings isn't all that impressive once you include an ocean of We've also noted that while many of these skinny bundle offerings provide the illusion of value, the actual savings isn't all that impressive once you include an ocean of additional fees and surcharges . In short, the name of the game for many cable executives has been to try and provide the illusion of value and bundle flexibility, without actually doing so. And with cord cutting starting to accelerate to record levels, it's a game of illusion that won't be sustainable for long.







News Jump Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 22 comments

ILikeTech

join:2015-03-09 8 recommendations ILikeTech Member I think this study is stating what we already knew.



the other issue comes with simplicity. We tried the whole streaming app deal for a while but every time my kids wanted to watch TV, I had to go help them get the input changed, find the right app, find the channel/show they wanted. Not to mention the times things don't work as expected, then the wife is annoyed and obviously the whole house suffers then.



We just pay for cable now, quite happy with the Xfinity X1, I just wish they did a better job grouping their channels The issue I have though is that every "skinny" bundle and streaming channel are still offering packages, nearly nothing is actually a le carte. I don't care about network channels or sports, I want Science, Discovery, Smithsonian, History, etc.. There are no packages for that, the only way I can get those is to go with a full on cable subscription, which sucks due to how little TV I actually watch.the other issue comes with simplicity. We tried the whole streaming app deal for a while but every time my kids wanted to watch TV, I had to go help them get the input changed, find the right app, find the channel/show they wanted. Not to mention the times things don't work as expected, then the wife is annoyed and obviously the whole house suffers then.We just pay for cable now, quite happy with the Xfinity X1, I just wish they did a better job grouping their channels

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 5 recommendations maartena Premium Member Channels are done.... Whether it is fat cable, or skinny cable, the idea of channels in a grid guide is starting to show its age. There will always be a need for live entertainment, whether that be sports, news, or other live events..... but all other programming that has been pre-recorded and edited in studios doesn't have to be on a "channel" anymore, it will start to move to on an on-demand type platform.



a-la-carte as TV lovers have always wanted it, is never going to happen. The new a-la-carte is going to streaming services, either with or without a live stream version of the channel included, such as CBS All Access, HBO Now, Showtime, Starz, and the streaming service that Disney is cooking up right now after pulling their content from Netflix.



CBS is the one taking a chance on this now.... their CBS All Access includes a live stream version of the channel, it includes all the sports it has rights to, and it has exclusive new content such as the new Star Trek Discovery show. Whether this will pay off remains to be seen, but it is said that by the time Discovery premiered, 8 million people had subscribed to the service, and that is quite impressive.



Right now, a show comes on at "9/8c" for two-thirds of the American population, and those in the west will wait a couple of hours more. But its on a grid schedule with other channels like it has always been for the last 50 or so years. The future will just see shows released on a certain day in the morning, and people can watch them whenever they want. The kids might watch it when they get out of school, the yuppies with their dinner bowls on the couch, and the night owls just before midnight. No need to record or set a DVR, it will just be there. On Demand. Just like Netflix or Hulu.



And that is where things will be going. We'll still tune in for live events, but we will no longer rely on "channels" in "bundles", skinny or otherwise. Now there are going to be people who want to still have channels, but those channels will start to erode away.... and soon you will be paying what you pay now... for fewer and fewer channels.



I am projecting that companies like Discovery, NBC, Disney, Viacom will all have launched streaming services before this decade is out, where all of their programming - niche and mainstream - will be available. And I am projecting that eventually..... the channels will die. Or, instead of the 12 channels Discovery now owns, there will be only 2 left.



If you want to continue to use channels, you should really go a-la-carte as soon as possible. Allow people to pick from buckets, a $1 bucket with $1 channels in it, one for $2 channels, one for $3 channels. Perhaps to make it profitable require a minimum of 5 channels. News channels are probably in the $1 bucket because they aren't expensive. General entertainment such as food network or HGTV or History channel should be in the $2 bucket, and then the channels with major shows behind them such as TNT and TBS are in the $3 bucket.



In any case, the television revolution has already begun. You can either join the revolution and go to streaming, or you can keep holding on to your "channels" with your cold dead hands for as long as you can.... Tchaika

join:2017-03-20

New Orleans, LA 4 recommendations Tchaika Member Need Compulsory Licenses I've said it before, with regards the fragmentation of the streaming ecosystem, and I think the same applies here.



Problem is, to use everyone's favorite whipping boy (ESPN) as the example, you can't just subscribe to ABC and Disney, because they also own ESPN, and they won't sell you the first two without making you purchase the third one.



Much as I hate the cable industry, this is not their fault.



Compulsory licenses, as have existed for decades with music, would fix this. They would also end carriage disputes and channel blackouts.

karpodiem

Hail to The Victors

Premium Member

join:2008-05-20

Troy, MI ·WOW Internet and..

·Comcast XFINITY

3 recommendations karpodiem Premium Member 4xTiVo HD 652160's on Lifetime



WideOpenWest has great service. Check out my review - » Switched from Comcast to WideOpenWest just so I don't have to deal with Comcast's compression garbage. I have great admiration for my TiVos; replaced the hard drives with 2TB drives, as well as the capacitors. Still going strong.WideOpenWest has great service. Check out my review - » Review of WOW Internet and Cable by karpodiem