HBO considering offering HBO GO w/o cable

[Benny B]

If you like sports, it's there.  You want porn, it's there.  You want religious programming, it's there.  History, education, movies, news, ethnic, music....it's there.  For a few dollars a day.  And in the process, the revenues generated flow downstream to help more content to be created, enrich my alma maters, push leading edge technologies like HD, 4K, DVRs, interactivity, etc...all to make your life and others happier.

The tragic flaw in your soliloquy is that DirecTV is the laggard when it comes to new technologies.  DTV simply took a 1960's idea, adapted it for early-90's technology, and has been milking that cow ever since... at least your neighbor in Englewood, CO is pumping some rBGH into their cow.

[keefe]

All that being said, we (the industry) has some pretty awesome patents of our own over the years.  Some of which are on the coattails of what the military has done, and some that are unique from day one.

Were you the guys behind that movie theatre gizmo that gets the Faux Butter throughout the whole Large Popcorn Tub?   

[Coleman]

Were you the guys behind that movie theatre gizmo that gets the Faux Butter throughout the whole Large Popcorn Tub?   

No, that was the military too

[Lennys Tap]

All that being said, we (the industry) has some pretty awesome patents of our own over the years.  Some of which are on the coattails of what the military has done, and some that are unique from day one.

We (the planet) are forever in your debt.

[keefe]

No, that was the military too

Death by clogged artery...

[ChicosBailBonds]

The tragic flaw in your soliloquy is that DirecTV is the laggard when it comes to new technologies.  DTV simply took a 1960's idea, adapted it for early-90's technology, and has been milking that cow ever since... at least your neighbor in Englewood, CO is pumping some rBGH into their cow.

Uh, ok. This company?  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-02/dish-network-the-meanest-company-in-america

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/4/3835670/what-makes-dish-network-the-worst-company-to-work-for-in-america

They're having trouble just keeping people there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Back to the original thread...simple math

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/11/citing-the-math-hbos-alison-moore-says-there-are-still-no-plans-for-standalone-hbo-go-in-the-u-s/

http://allthingsd.com/20130322/hbo-explains-why-its-not-going-a-la-carte-any-time-soon/

[ChicosBailBonds]

From today


A La Carte ESPN Would Cost Consumers $30 Per Month While Industry Could Lose $13B

Published July 16, 2013

Research shows 20% of pay-TV subscribers would pay for ESPN if a la carte
ESPN would "cost vastly more for sports fans, about $30 a month, if it was unbundled from the pay-TV package and sold separately only to those who wanted to watch it," according to Bob Fernandez of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER. That would be "five times the $6 a month" that ESPN now costs as part of the "big TV bundles offered by cablecasters such as Comcast." Fans that would choose ESPN at the increased cost "would be unlikely to purchase non-sports entertainment channels, leading to billions of dollars in lost revenue." Needham Co. analyst Laura Martin yesterday released her Future of TV report, the "latest contribution to the public debate in Washington and within the TV industry on skyrocketing TV sports costs and what to do about them." Martin said that 20 million pay-TV subscribers, or "one in five, would choose to purchase ESPN if they had the option." This "falls below the 25 million subscribers that many national advertisers seek on pay-TV systems, so ESPN would lose substantial ad revenue." She estimated that "unbundling ESPN could result" in $13B in lost revenue of the pay-TV industry's total $150B revenue per year "because of a cascading effect of lost advertising revenue and ESPN fans not selecting to purchase non-sports channels." Martin said, "This has to be solved, and these negotiators have to figure out how to keep (sports cable channels) in the bundle" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 7/16). CABLEFAX DAILY reports sports "accounts for about 50% of sub fees and accounts for less than 25% of total viewing." Martin in her report wrote, "We can find no math where unbundling is the best economic answer" (CABLEFAX DAILY, 7/16).

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

But there's no way they could get $30. Why? Because people won't pay $30, so they'll have to cut it back to ~$10. They might actually pick up some customers at $10 that they wouldn't have at $30. Same as any other product out there. Market economics really isn't that difficult.

I await the gnashing of teeth when this inevitable day comes and the ESPN's of the world are taken down a few notches.

[Coleman]

But there's no way they could get $30. Why? Because people won't pay $30, so they'll have to cut it back to ~$10. They might actually pick up some customers at $10 that they wouldn't have at $30. Same as any other product out there. Market economics really isn't that difficult.

+1

It's like ESPN forgot how supply and demand works.

[Benny B]

From today


A La Carte ESPN Would Cost Consumers $30 Per Month While Industry Could Lose $13B

Published July 16, 2013

Research shows 20% of pay-TV subscribers would pay for ESPN if a la carte
ESPN would "cost vastly more for sports fans, about $30 a month, if it was unbundled from the pay-TV package and sold separately only to those who wanted to watch it," according to Bob Fernandez of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER. That would be "five times the $6 a month" that ESPN now costs as part of the "big TV bundles offered by cablecasters such as Comcast." Fans that would choose ESPN at the increased cost "would be unlikely to purchase non-sports entertainment channels, leading to billions of dollars in lost revenue." Needham Co. analyst Laura Martin yesterday released her Future of TV report, the "latest contribution to the public debate in Washington and within the TV industry on skyrocketing TV sports costs and what to do about them." Martin said that 20 million pay-TV subscribers, or "one in five, would choose to purchase ESPN if they had the option." This "falls below the 25 million subscribers that many national advertisers seek on pay-TV systems, so ESPN would lose substantial ad revenue." She estimated that "unbundling ESPN could result" in $13B in lost revenue of the pay-TV industry's total $150B revenue per year "because of a cascading effect of lost advertising revenue and ESPN fans not selecting to purchase non-sports channels." Martin said, "This has to be solved, and these negotiators have to figure out how to keep (sports cable channels) in the bundle" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 7/16). CABLEFAX DAILY reports sports "accounts for about 50% of sub fees and accounts for less than 25% of total viewing." Martin in her report wrote, "We can find no math where unbundling is the best economic answer" (CABLEFAX DAILY, 7/16).

Imagine that: a report on why unbundling ESPN is bad for everyone authored by.... wait for it.... a Disney consultant.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Imagine that: a report on why unbundling ESPN is bad for everyone authored by.... wait for it.... a Disney consultant.

Incorrect.


Needham is an investment banking firm among other things.  Martin is an expert in this area, who also researches Discovery, News Corp, Viacom, CBS, Scripps, Disney along with a bunch of other companies like AOL, Time Warner, Facebook, Yahoo, Nielsen, etc.  I'd hardly call her a Disney consultant, that would imply she is paid by Disney to consult them.  She is not.   She understands this sector and advises institutional investors why or why not to invest in them.  Smart as a whip...Harvard Business School, Stanford, etc.

If you wish to peruse her resume, here you go

http://www.capknowledge.com/docs/07_18_11_LAM_Resume.pdf


I can give you 30 to 50 economists that have said the same thing about the math, Congressional investigators, etc, etc.  The math doesn't work.  I don't see the networks or studios doing it.  Like I've said, we would be happy to offer it a la carte, but we can't.  They won't let us because the math doesn't work.

Supply and demand would be cool.  I can only suggest one contact Mr. Redstone, Mr. Iger, Mr. Murdoch, etc, etc.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

It's coming whether you want it to or not. Unless you can make the case that welfare recipients should be able to pay their welfare checks toward DTV et. al, the ever shrinking part of the population with disposable income is not going to pay $100++/mo. for a television package when the few alternatives (Netflix, Hulu) keep coming out. Maybe we can get the Obama phone people to work up an Obama TV program.

[Benny B]

Incorrect.


Needham is an investment banking firm among other things.  Martin is an expert in this area, who also researches Discovery, News Corp, Viacom, CBS, Scripps, Disney along with a bunch of other companies like AOL, Time Warner, Facebook, Yahoo, Nielsen, etc.  I'd hardly call her a Disney consultant, that would imply she is paid by Disney to consult them.  She is not.   She understands this sector and advises institutional investors why or why not to invest in them.  Smart as a whip...Harvard Business School, Stanford, etc.

If you wish to peruse her resume, here you go

http://www.capknowledge.com/docs/07_18_11_LAM_Resume.pdf


I can give you 30 to 50 economists that have said the same thing about the math, Congressional investigators, etc, etc.  The math doesn't work.  I don't see the networks or studios doing it.  Like I've said, we would be happy to offer it a la carte, but we can't.  They won't let us because the math doesn't work.

Supply and demand would be cool.  I can only suggest one contact Mr. Redstone, Mr. Iger, Mr. Murdoch, etc, etc.

Perhaps I misspoke....  what I should have said was published or commissioned by a Disney consultant.  An i-Stalker with top notch Google-Wikipedia skillz such as yourself should have been able to ascertain the relationship that exists between Needham and Disney.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Perhaps I misspoke....  what I should have said was published or commissioned by a Disney consultant.  An i-Stalker with top notch Google-Wikipedia skillz such as yourself should have been able to ascertain the relationship that exists between Needham and Disney.

Laura Martin isn't a Disney consultant.   This wasn't commissioned by a Disney consultant nor is Needham & Company a Disney consultant (at least not in this space).  We've heard Laura's presentations for many years, she's very good (not hard on the eyes either).  Needham, in this role at least, is an investment firm \ asset management company.  This is why when she talks about buy, hold, neutral, sell, etc ratings on Disney and other companies, she carries some weight.  In fact, Needham put a hold on Disney today.  As a Disney shareholder (and former employee), I appreciate her insight and that of Needham.  She's a smart cookie.

[keefe]

Laura Martin isn't a Disney consultant.   This wasn't commissioned by a Disney consultant nor is Needham & Company a Disney consultant (at least not in this space).  We've heard Laura's presentations for many years, she's very good (not hard on the eyes either).  Needham, in this role at least, is an investment firm \ asset management company.  This is why when she talks about buy, hold, neutral, sell, etc ratings on Disney and other companies, she carries some weight.  In fact, Needham put a hold on Disney today.  As a Disney shareholder (and former employee), I appreciate her insight and that of Needham.  She's a smart cookie.

I have met Laura Martin. In my role at TMO I worked closely with the Sand Hill Road community and Needham has a presence there. I spoke with Martin at length during a 2 day gathering at Andreessen Horowitz. I presented on how content is driving loyalty in Mobile while she looked at content with a much broader aperture. It is silly to suggest she has an agenda of any sort as she makes her coin by offering an independent, objective, unvarnished view of content across a number of verticals. She is exceptionally bright and carries a lot of heft in that space. And yes, she is not bad to look at in a gracefully aging sort of way.     

[Spotcheck Billy]

That sounds just like Marty Kaan from House of Lies. 

I have met Laura Martin. In my role at TMO I worked closely with the Sand Hill Road community and Needham has a presence there. I spoke with Martin at length during a 2 day gathering at Andreessen Horowitz. I presented on how content is driving loyalty in Mobile while she looked at content with a much broader aperture. It is silly to suggest she has an agenda of any sort as she makes her coin by offering an independent, objective, unvarnished view of content across a number of verticals. She is exceptionally bright and carries a lot of heft in that space. And yes, she is not bad to look at in a gracefully aging sort of way.     

[keefe]

That sounds just like Marty Kaan from House of Lies. 

Is that the take-off on McKinsey/BCG/Bain with Don Cheadle?

[Spotcheck Billy]

Is that the take-off on McKinsey/BCG/Bain with Don Cheadle?

that's it

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's coming whether you want it to or not. Unless you can make the case that welfare recipients should be able to pay their welfare checks toward DTV et. al, the ever shrinking part of the population with disposable income is not going to pay $100++/mo. for a television package when the few alternatives (Netflix, Hulu) keep coming out. Maybe we can get the Obama phone people to work up an Obama TV program.

That's probably why we have launched so many packages so customers can get programming under $60....we realize that, but you can only put so much into those packages due to the cost and still make a profit.  At the end of the day, we buy product and distribute it.  The prices we pay are set by the content producers (studios, sports leagues, television networks).  You just wait to see what happens with the pricing on Netflix and Hulu in the next few years, it's going to make you cry.  The studios want their money, and if they aren't getting it from pay TV and people shift to another source, that other source is going to pay the difference and fill the void.  We just went through 8 months of due diligence to purchase Hulu.   A real eye opener is coming for a lot of people out there than think everything should be FRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have met Laura Martin. In my role at TMO I worked closely with the Sand Hill Road community and Needham has a presence there. I spoke with Martin at length during a 2 day gathering at Andreessen Horowitz. I presented on how content is driving loyalty in Mobile while she looked at content with a much broader aperture. It is silly to suggest she has an agenda of any sort as she makes her coin by offering an independent, objective, unvarnished view of content across a number of verticals. She is exceptionally bright and carries a lot of heft in that space. And yes, she is not bad to look at in a gracefully aging sort of way.     

DING DING DING.....thank you.   

[jesmu84]

We just went through 8 months of due diligence to purchase Hulu.   A real eye opener is coming for a lot of people out there than think everything should be FRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here is asking for anything to be free. It seems the consensus is just that we want to pay for what we want - a la carte purchasing.

Also, I think it's telling that NBC, etc. started up Hulu to get back some of the "cord cutters." Also interesting that Hulu started with very little commercials and usually the choice to watch a 2 minute commercial at the beginning or 2-3 30 second commercials during your show. Now it's 2-3 30 second commercials, 3-4 times per episode. When a company finds a way to make money, they will take it to the nth degree.

[Benny B]

DING DING DING.....thank you.   

Again... not talking about Laura, I'm talking about her employer.  But there's no way that Needham takes that report public without the mouse's permission.  If Ms. Martin wrote it with an opposite message, I guarantee it never sees the light of day.

That's got to be the most frustrating thing about being an independent analyst for a company who has a relationship with your subject... a good portion of your work ends up in the custody of "top men."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here is asking for anything to be free. It seems the consensus is just that we want to pay for what we want - a la carte purchasing.

Also, I think it's telling that NBC, etc. started up Hulu to get back some of the "cord cutters." Also interesting that Hulu started with very little commercials and usually the choice to watch a 2 minute commercial at the beginning or 2-3 30 second commercials during your show. Now it's 2-3 30 second commercials, 3-4 times per episode. When a company finds a way to make money, they will take it to the nth degree.

You can't believe the number of people out there that think it should be free.  It's entertaining to read, to be sure.   

I get you want to pay for you want, we would like to offer it in that fashion.  We aren't allowed to.  I also think it will be interesting for those that say they want to just pay for what they want if they change their tune when ESPN is $30 for one channel and by the time they are done stacking up their 10 to 15 channels they want, they are $70 to $80 in.  This is why it's been fun watching the Canadians give this a go and then the customers now saying "well wait, we didn't know this was going to be the outcome."  If people want that system, by all means send letters to your congressmen, get the legislation passed but also understand the ramifications....there will be plenty.  Big money for schools like Marquette from sports rights....bye bye.  One of many examples.  I think most people in this country have not a clue on the ramifications...I'm being generous...I know they don't. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again... not talking about Laura, I'm talking about her employer.  But there's no way that Needham takes that report public without the mouse's permission.  If Ms. Martin wrote it with an opposite message, I guarantee it never sees the light of day.

That's got to be the most frustrating thing about being an independent analyst for a company who has a relationship with your subject... a good portion of your work ends up in the custody of "top men."

I don't know why you keep saying this...you are wrong.  They ARE NOT A CONSULTANT OF DISNEY.  They are an analyst....analysts come out with reports all the time on companies and are not consultants of those companies.  Do they see a report in advance, sure that's possible but that doesn't mean the analyst can't deliver incredibly bad news about a company.  At the end of the day, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients...their customers, not to Disney or AOL or Microsoft.  They are there to advise on certain companies that their customers are either advised to buy or not to buy based on their research.  I don't understand why you keep saying this about Needham and Disney.