Time Warner Cable‘s Glenn Britt took a tougher stance on this subject than I’ve heard in a while in his presentation this morning at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference in New York. “We’re going to take a hard look at each service and those services that cost too much relative to the viewership, we’re going to drop them,” he says. He adds that “if you have a network that has hashmark ratings and isn’t going anywhere, we’re going to have a different conversation” in 2013 than before. The problem, he says, is that many cable network owners “almost feel like it’s a birthright” for their channels to be included in the basic pay TV bundle. When the channels don’t perform, owners say “next year I’ll work harder and spend more money on programming and it’ll be good.” But Time Warner Cable, along with other pay TV distributors, can no longer pass those costs along to subscribers. With the economy “bouncing along the bottom,” Britt says, “the consumer is telling us that we can’t afford these prices anymore.” His company has been squeezed: Since 2008 his programming costs have risen 30% while his video prices have gone up 15%, exceeding the 10% rise in the Consumer Price Index. Network owners have an interest in maintaining the current system of bundling channels because “the entertainment business is one of the riskiest businesses on the planet.” If consumers were allowed to just pay for the channels they want, television’s business model would look “a lot more like Broadway theaters.”
In response to a question, Britt denied that his company more than makes up for the programming costs with the huge profits it collects from its broadband service. “It is a wrong impression to say that broadband is obscenely profitable and video isn’t….A pretty high percentage of our capital spending goes to broadband.” Early this year Time Warner Cable battled the MSG Network regional sports channel over high costs, but had to back down when Jeremy Lin — then of the New York Knicks — began a sensational scoring run.


This is coming from Time Warner Cable’s CEO? The company that basically extorted its competitors into carrying the Laker channel for $3-4/month per subscriber on the basic tier?
Hypocrisy anyone?
“Britt says, ‘the consumer is telling us that we can’t afford these prices anymore.’” Rrrrright.
THIS consumer told Comcast that I’m not willing to pay for sports channels I don’t even watch by cutting the cord. Screw the Lakers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for a lot of TV networks. I’m guessing it’ll be like print – the top dogs will still be around, the smaller ones will quickly fade into obscurity.
If a la carte ever comes, 95% of them go away. Cable companies don’t really benefit from a la carte — the bundle is the business. I think this is a warning shot across the bow of the third-tier channels. “If you want to survive, get cheap or get better.” Cable is planning on keeping the bundle alive for a couple of decades. To do that, they need to moderate the cost increases. The best way to do that is to get rid of the weaker parts of the bundle.
He’ll have to kill off a heck of a lot of 25 cent entertainment channels to pay for all those $4 sports networks. The problem isn’t The Cooking Channel or the Military History Channel. It’s The Lakers Channel and the Longhorn Network.
What could happen is some of the 3rd tier channels will be bought by the first tier channels and they will still force cable channels to carry them just like local channels forced cable channels to carry all their secondary digital channels
Give me a la carte pricing. My bill will go down, my satisfaction will go up, and programmers will have to cater to the viewer, not the cable company.
Get a tv antenna and receive 20, 30 or more channels FREE over the air! And the digital channels you will receive are technically better (not re-compressed) than the ones you receive via cable or dish. With all the sub-channels that are now being telecast, you’ll have many more channels than you can watch – but for free. If you’re still not satisfied, add Netflix unlimited streaming for just $8.00 per month. In the last 4 years since I cut the cable, I’ve saved $4,000!!!!!!
Subscribers are creating a defacto ala carte – via Netflix, Amazon, Google, Apple,etc.. Unfortunately as long as cable owns the content and sells it, as well, there appears limited ways to circumvent the continued rate increases up until their suicidal final demise. But there are some ways for cable to survive. Cable has to eliminate its “Field of Dreams” mentality. Cable can become a positive influencer by changing their revenue model. Internet has proven there are targeted ad models that work. Cable must incorporate a targeted ad strategy along with reducing subscription rates to absorb future content increases. The hybrid model would be based on social media interests and preferences, starting with direct ads on all time shifted programming. Groupon like infomercials, with word of mouth on steroids, group buying, and urgency to buy. Amazon like preferences and alerts. Cable is currently using data from demographics and set-top boxes, a flawed strategy, with privacy issues. They could be using analytics from behavioral marketing data. Maybe we are at a time when they are more interested in constructive suggestions with all that is at stake? The success of Apple in music , Google in search, and Amazon in retail and publishing has been accomplished primarily by putting the consumer’s savings and interests first. Long forgotten by cable. Desperation may create some strange bedfellows.
This is the same Time Warner that makes its subscribers subsidize local news operations like NY1 and Ynn. Get real talking bout low rated with high costs.
Wow you have no clue, you must work for a local news station that are trying to make your cable company pay for local channels yes? See they pay for ynn with ads. what a concept!!!! maybe the locals should do the same, stop trying to broker deals to charge cable companies, that must carry your local channels because FCC says it’s a must. It’s so crazy if it wasn’t for cable and dish and direct tv, most of the channels wouldn’t be around. they get a foot hold and they want to broker crazy $$$$ deals that get pass on to us the consumer. Maybe it’s time the channels pay for the transportation of their products to the consumer and you would see the price drop like a lead balloon.