President of Shaw: Consumers prefer bundled TV packages - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

fredr123 · 10-21-2011, 08:08 AM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle2207573/

Quote:

Canada’s broadcast regulator has been pushing cable and satellite companies for cheaper “skinny basic” TV packages. But executives from Shaw Communications Inc. (SJR.B-T20.700.100.49%) believe they’ve already slimmed down enough, thank you very much.

Shaw president Peter Bissonnette said on a conference call with investors on Thursday that the Calgary-based company is not planning to offer more of its channels on a “pick-and-pay” basis, whereby customers are given more choice in which channels they buy. He said consumers are not asking for it and prefer to buy their TV services in bundled packages.

How can you know what consumer preference is if the only thing that's ever been offered outside of Quebec is bundled TV packages?

shermanator · 10-21-2011, 08:12 AM

The hell they do! If I could pick and pay to get the channels I want, I would have 20 channels. Instead, I had over 100.

Regular_John · 10-21-2011, 08:20 AM

Wait, is this one of those "I'm not only the president, I'm also a customer!" things? Because than yeah, as a shareholder/customer of shaw he's thrilled with bundled packes.

username · 10-21-2011, 08:24 AM

What a concept it would be for Shaw to offer both pick and pay and bundles. Wow, how inovative - let your customers choose.

This guy needs to get his head out of his arse.

OilKiller · 10-21-2011, 08:25 AM

Yeah, that's total crap. Just give me HD channels and lower my bill. I don't need all that SD junk.

Russic · 10-21-2011, 08:36 AM

I would have a lot more respect for him if he just came out and said "we need to bundle less watched channels with more popular channels otherwise nobody would order them and we'd make less money".

fredr123 · 10-21-2011, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russic

I would have a lot more respect for him if he just came out and said "we need to bundle less watched channels with more popular channels otherwise nobody would order them and we'd make less money".

Exactly. Every single response so far in this thread is the exact reason Shaw is not going to offer a la carte programming unless forced to do so by regulators. Shaw would lose a lot of revenue and the shareholders would be displeased with the President.

Rathji · 10-21-2011, 09:00 AM

I wonder how much prices would increase on a per channel basis if there were unbundled options available.

(Just making up numbers here, independent of provider or a particular package)
Obviously if a bundle cost $10 and had 5 channels, it would not cost $2 for each channel individually. Off the top of my head, I would think $4 would be appropriate for an average channel, but depending on the popularity I could see it easily varying from $3-$5. As for letting people drop SD, I imagine it would be a even larger hit. To the point where it probably wouldn't make sense for most people, since there are so many channels that are not available in HD (and likely never will be, unless it became common for TV providers to offer HD only packages.) I am thinking of stuff like Teletoon, Treehouse, and other kids stuff, where the content is all several years old and might not even exist in an HD format.

If you think of it like that, you would certainly save some money if the circumstances were right, but certain bundles would obviously be a better value for some people. Clearly, they should give people a choice, and charge what is appropriate. If they don't want to pay what is appropriate, then obviously they prefer the bundled options.

sclitheroe · 10-21-2011, 09:03 AM

So nobody here watches a less popular channel that might cease to be carried were it not financially viable via bundling?

Rathji · 10-21-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredr123

Exactly. Every single response so far in this thread is the exact reason Shaw is not going to offer a la carte programming unless forced to do so by regulators. Shaw would lose a lot of revenue and the shareholders would be displeased with the President.

I don't think they would have to lose much revenue when all is said and done. I think people are drastically overestimating the amount of money they would save as consumers, even if they cut their total channels in half. There is no way the bill would be cut in half, that's for sure.

Here is another thought that I am not sure about, and maybe someone can clarify how it works. Sure they would lose some revenue, but wouldn't they somehow end up paying less for certain channels if they were not getting subscribers? Do they pay for channels per subscription or is it a fixed amount over a term of a contract? I think the big losers in the whole things would be networks that don't draw enough subscribers to pay the bills, so they risk going under. Also, the people who watch these stations would probably be ticked.

rubecube · 10-21-2011, 09:09 AM

Is anyone really surprised by this? Worst run telco in the business by a mile and it starts at the top.

Tinordi · 10-21-2011, 09:11 AM

Then those channels aren't financially viable and shouldn't be subsidized.

Tinordi · 10-21-2011, 09:12 AM

And by the way, what a load of horsecrap that above quote is. I would buy a grand total of 3 channels.

kermitology · 10-21-2011, 09:13 AM

One of the problems I have with bundles is the multiple bundles just to get all the content I want. So rather than just Sports.. I'll have to get Sports 1 and Sports 2 just to get both TSN and TSN 2.

That was my experience regardless of provider. I do honestly not know what Shaw's bundles are though.

Flash Walken · 10-21-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kermitology

One of the problems I have with bundles is the multiple bundles just to get all the content I want. So rather than just Sports.. I'll have to get Sports 1 and Sports 2 just to get both TSN and TSN 2.

That was my experience regardless of provider. I do honestly not know what Shaw's bundles are though.

To get HD channels you must also first purchase Standard def.

"Ok, I will sell you this blu-ray, but first you have to buy this VHS. Yes, I know you'll never watch the VHS copy because you have the Blu-Ray copy, but you still have to buy it."

rubecube · 10-21-2011, 09:41 AM

Cable companies are going to be on their way out soon if they don't smarten up. I can get any TV show anytime I want, and now I can get both NHL Gamecentre and NFL Sunday Ticket on my PS3. The only reason I still need cable is to get Sunday and Monday night football.

OilKiller · 10-21-2011, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can get any TV show anytime I want

Legally and in HD? For how much?

The wife and I have AppleTV for example and we thought about doing something like that, but the cost of a season of shows in HD is just crazy compared to what we pay for cable per year and be able to watch all of the primetime shows.

Flames Fan, Ph.D. · 10-21-2011, 09:54 AM

In other news, customers also want Bag O'Glass back on the market.

SuperMatt18 · 10-21-2011, 09:56 AM

All the blame cannot be blamed at Shaw/Telus/Rogers for this issue, the bigger problem is that the content providers pretty much force the providers to have bundles and that the government has done nothing to prevent this.

IIRC if you want TSN you also need to have the Golf Channel and Speed Network in the same package.

Plus we should probably be careful what we wish for because it we wanted them to strip it down they probably would, and then they would respond by charging us $20/month for TSN individually.

Hockeyguy15 · 10-21-2011, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

To get HD channels you must also first purchase Standard def.

"Ok, I will sell you this blu-ray, but first you have to buy this VHS. Yes, I know you'll never watch the VHS copy because you have the Blu-Ray copy, but you still have to buy it."

Ever notice how they are selling the blu ray/dvd combos now? Why do I need the dvd and the blu ray? Stupid.