What things would cost if cable companies went to a la carte
CRobGauth
Community Leader
Community Leader

Interesting article on how much ESPN might cost if you had to buy it a la carte vs it being part of all packages:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/07/espn-ala-carte-price-unbundle-unbundling-price-per-month-hbo?csp=spo...

0 Likes
4 Replies
eljefe2
Master - Level 1

Pretty interesting if you click on the vote at the end of that article.   At the moment the vote on the question "Would you pay $36 a month for ESPN?" is:

No:  26,121

Yes:  1,277

And that doesn't include someone like myself who not only wouldn't pay for ESPN a la carte but I wish I wasn't paying for it in my package. (Yes, there are some of us out there who are not sports fans. Smiley Wink )

I tend to be in favor of a la carte but I think the bottom line would come down to...the bottom line.  By that I mean I'd have to see if I'd be paying more or less for all the channels I want to have available without all the channels I would never and will never watch.  Would my a la carte package cost more or less than the package I have now?

0 Likes
VoiceofReason2

I'm not sure that I understand the modality of this particular study that puts the price at $36/month.  

I wouldn't want to pay that in addition to my current cost--but, if ALL channels were unbundled from the package, and thus each one was "on it's own"  I would be saving a fortune by not paying for a bunch of channels that I don't care about at all.

So, in that case, I would very likely agree to pay $36 for ESPN.

Of the well over 200 channels on my current plan, I can say truthfully that I never watch 75% of them. The only reason that I have that type of plan is that the various channels that I do want are not all offered on the same plan, so I have to upgrade to get them all. 

So, if we could truly pay a la carte--I suspect that I would be way ahead.

0 Likes
CRobGauth
Community Leader
Community Leader

Depending on what channels you want to watch, if they cost 4-5 times more than what they do today, you may end up paying the same or more than you do today for less channels.

0 Likes
SinCara
Specialist - Level 2

@VoiceofReason wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand the modality of this particular study that puts the price at $36/month.  

I wouldn't want to pay that in addition to my current cost--but, if ALL channels were unbundled from the package, and thus each one was "on it's own"  I would be saving a fortune by not paying for a bunch of channels that I don't care about at all.

So, in that case, I would very likely agree to pay $36 for ESPN.

Of the well over 200 channels on my current plan, I can say truthfully that I never watch 75% of them. The only reason that I have that type of plan is that the various channels that I do want are not all offered on the same plan, so I have to upgrade to get them all. 

So, if we could truly pay a la carte--I suspect that I would be way ahead.


A la carte would most likely cost way more for most people in the long run.

If channels charge a good $9.99 a month and that's right around what they'd be, even if you had just 4 channels thats $40 a month. Then add espn at $36 and you're already at $76 a month and that wouldn't even include the internet, taxes, equipment, etc.

Even custom hd right now isn't worth it for the majority of people. It is for some though.

It's just like those that go the streaming route. You have the internet fee, then you have Netflix, Hulu Plus, CBS which is now charging and whatever else you need to subscribe and pay for. It all adds up.

0 Likes