TV Networks Continuing to Resist Apple's Effort to Slash iTunes Pricing

[jaw04005]

The current iTunes model has all sorts of problems. It’s too expensive ($2.99 per episode for low bit-rate 720p HD, really?), prices are inconsistent and variable across sub-sections, iTunes content can only be played back on Apple devices and it adds to the increasing problem of trying to store and backup all this iTunes content.

Not to mention, Apple TV, which one would think would be the ideal way to consume iTunes TV show and movie content, is the bastard child of Apple, Inc.

It’s time to move to the cloud. Stream the shows for free and let the networks place ads in the shows, etc. They have all this great technology like HTTP streaming, QuickTime TV, Streaming Server, etc. Yet, they don’t use it.

Something has to give here. Apple needs to try new business models with the iTunes Store. Not everyone wants to own (and therefore store) all their TV shows and movies or music for that matter.

 

[bytethese]

Don't see the value? I don't buy TV shows. I watch them on my DVR if I miss them during their normal broadcast. For $.99 tho? I'd actually consider purchasing a few episodes that I may have missed and would perhaps want to watch again. That's revenue from just one person that did not offer any revenue before. So to recap, 0 x $1.99 = $0, #Episodes x $.99 = >$.99. Perhaps regular customers would purchase and download more content given the cheaper price?

 

[MMX]

Paying for TV shows gets a laugh out of me. It's similar to paying for books.

You're laughing a lot lately.

 

[miketcool]

Boy is that PBS ever so greedy!

Nothing says support, like lowering the prices on quality, commercial free programs, on the Public Broadcasting Service. Nice Apple.

 

[Eidorian]

You're laughing a lot lately.

Frugality is a lost art.

 

[Small White Car]

Paying for TV shows gets a laugh out of me. It's similar to paying for books.

So you don't pay for movies either?

 

[lorkkrue]

Yeah!!

Today is that day. Get out your credit card.

Now I can finally get a legit copy to my poorly bootlegged copies ones.
Downloading it now . . .

 

[MMX]

Frugality is a lost art.

Laughing is overrated.

 

[mondaiguy]

TV shows aren't selling because few people want to own their TV shows. Most TV shows are the kind of thing you only want to watch maybe one or two times.

Most people don't even buy their movies, so why would they buy TV shows?

Besides, few have the money to buy TV shows. I personally would probably pay as much as $50 a month to Apple if I could watch any TV or music video on iTunes. Heck, you don't even have to let me watch it more than once. This is $50 more than I spend currently with the buy-to-own model. Why would I be willing to spend so much? Because if I could watch pretty much anything, I know I would discover a lot of great stuff that I know I'm missing out on right now, and that would make it worth it. Hell, I might even buy some of the stuff I really love. Maybe there could be a discount for subscribers.

The future is letting people watch what they want, when they want, how they want, where they want. Name your price. Whoever comes up with this model is going to see their bank accounts explode, because a ton of people are going to go for it.

 

[qbricc]

Bring on Box Set prices

Any download service such as itunes needs to be competitive with physical media. If say a box set for a TV show is released at 30 dollars on DVD then is on sale a few months later for 15 dollars then itunes needs to hit the 20-25 dollar mark.

With digital media there is less need to sell things off in order to make space in the store, it should therefore hold its value for longer but cost less from the start.

If films and series sets from itunes and a few dollars less from the get go then Apple might be able to kill off DVD and BR.

 

[Eidorian]

So you don't pay for movies either?

I want my $10 back for Avatar.

Otherwise no, I don't pay for movies. Moon predictable and Inglourious Basterds was a major let down.

 

[MMX]

TV shows aren't selling because few people want to own their TV shows. Most TV shows are the kind of thing you only want to watch maybe one or two times.

Most people don't even buy their movies, so why would they buy TV shows?

Besides, few have the money to buy TV shows. I personally would probably pay $40-$50 a month to Apple if I could watch any TV or music video on iTunes as many times as I wanted.

But I rarely buy TV on iTunes, and I probably will never buy anything again... that is, until they offer a subscribe-to-watch-almost-anything service.

TV shows aren't selling, because the price isn't right. I would buy a lot of TV Shows, even whole seasons. Here, in Europe, people like to own things, so they can choose when and how many times to watch it. Also there is that option to stream it to other Mac's and sync to iPod, iPhone or iPad not to mention AppleTV. I like having it.

I want my $10 back for Avatar.

Otherwise no, I don't pay for movies. Moon predictable and Inglourious Basterds was a major let down.

I enjoyed both.

 

[lord patton]

I don't get it. Aren't sales of TV shows way more profitable than selling ad time?

If you watch an episode online, how much does the advertiser pay the network for that one viewing? If you watch over cable or OTA network affiliate, how much does the studio get for each viewer?

Cause if you sell it via iTunes, they get 70 cents on the dollar, with no infrastructure overhead to serve the bits to the user. That's gotta be better than what an advertiser would pay, right? Who would pay the network a dollar for me to avert my eyes and turn off the volume 4 times during an airing of Caprica?

But I don't actually know any of the numbers, so I'm just talking out my ass here.

 

[convergent]

Can only speak for my household. I would buy an episode for $99 but I won't buy one for $1.99... plain and simple. This weekend my daughter wanted to watch some old episodes of Burn Notice and they were $1.99... we were all set to watch, thinking it was free (for some reason, episode 1 is free). I remember in my mind thinking... I'm not paying $2 for this when I'm already paying for Cable. Think about it... the average cable subscription is $50-75 just for basic digital cable. So best case, you are getting 75 x $1 shows per month. That's only 2.5 shows per day at that rate. At $2, that's a little over 1 show per day for the price of cable. They only hope they have is to get to $1 or less.

 

[jaw04005]

Can only speak for my household. I would buy an episode for $99 but I won't buy one for $1.99... plain and simple.

Haha. Please don’t give the networks any ideas.

 

[MMX]

Can only speak for my household. I would buy an episode for $99 but I won't buy one for $1.99... plain and simple. This weekend my daughter wanted to watch some old episodes of Burn Notice and they were $1.99... we were all set to watch, thinking it was free (for some reason, episode 1 is free). I remember in my mind thinking... I'm not paying $2 for this when I'm already paying for Cable. Think about it... the average cable subscription is $50-75 just for basic digital cable. So best case, you are getting 75 x $1 shows per month. That's only 2.5 shows per day at that rate. At $2, that's a little over 1 show per day for the price of cable. They only hope they have is to get to $1 or less.

TV is overrated. A lot of BS on TV these days. I only watch news and Olympics. I like buying when I want, what I want and how much I want.

 

[Friscohoya]

My guess is that this gets done. Money talks and so on and so forth.

 

[notjustjay]

Maybe a compromise, guys?

$1.49?

Can't we all just get along?

 

[pagansoul]

Right now on iTunes you can get Star Trek OS-remastered for 12.99 a season. Back then season 1 had 29 shows. That's under 50 cents a show. Granted it's an old show and everyone who likes ST already owned it in some version but I couldn't resist the price. I even already own the DVD of the OS, not the remaster set, but I still got the iTunes version. That is what the studios are missing. If they priced shows so we just can't pass it up than they will get their money. The quality isn't HD but I'm watching it on my 15" MBP or my 24 monitor or iphone or (when it gets here), my iPad.

 

[sohelpme]

Translation: We're trying to get as much money as we can from everybody.

 

[Robin4]

TV shows aren't selling because few people want to own their TV shows. Most TV shows are the kind of thing you only want to watch maybe one or two times.

Most people don't even buy their movies, so why would they buy TV shows?

Besides, few have the money to buy TV shows. I personally would probably pay as much as $50 a month to Apple if I could watch any TV or music video on iTunes. Heck, you don't even have to let me watch it more than once. This is $50 more than I spend currently with the buy-to-own model. Why would I be willing to spend so much? Because if I could watch pretty much anything, I know I would discover a lot of great stuff that I know I'm missing out on right now, and that would make it worth it. Hell, I might even buy some of the stuff I really love. Maybe there could be a discount for subscribers.

The future is letting people watch what they want, when they want, how they want, where they want. Name your price. Whoever comes up with this model is going to see their bank accounts explode, because a ton of people are going to go for it.

This makes sense. I don't mind paying for a subscription, even if it carries advertising. What I do mind is what I have now. I have Direct TV - it started at $40/mo, every month thereafter it kept going up to $80 and then to over $100. I called and complained, they brought it back down to $40 for one month and it is going up again. It is now $86.00. This is nuts. That antena over the roof is beginning to make sense.

Give me a subscription with a fixed reasonable fee, a package of say 25-30 channels of my choice, OK with advertising - you've got a deal.

 

[richman555]

To be honest, I think there is alot of untapped potential with the TV downloads. At the end of the day everything costs money, even your cable subscription, its just that the pricing models have to be worked out. Heck even Tivo is not free and those are simply recordings based off your existing cable. I have no problem buying tv show episodes that I wish to keep forever, however if it was a subscription or rental model, I would hope for a low cost I could download anything I want. In fact Id be willing to watch commercials if it was completely free. I have bought seasons of TV shows in many cases so if I miss one I can watch it later. There are also some I want to keep as a collection. I hope whatever they come up with, they allow the user more options. This also is a great boon for the Apple TV.

 

[Michael CM1]

Assuming these prices are not for current seasons of shows, here's the funny part:

I don't buy DVDs of shows any more -- unless it's something much older that is only on DVD, like early SNL. I have a Blu-ray Disc player, so I'm getting my money out of it. However, keep an eye on Best Buy, Target, Amazon, etc. for sales. They run sales of $20 for DVD sets ALL THE TIME. I'm looking at Best Buy's ad for this week, and a pair of season sets of Supernatural and Smallville are $17. That's 77 cents per episode. The same Supernatural season on iTunes is $39.99 in SD.

OK, so if Best Buy can run this sale on the entire set, why would it be a sin for iTunes to do the same? Also, why are 4-minute music videos, 22-minute comedies and 44-minute dramas all the same price?

The long and short of it is iTunes video is rarely competitively priced. If I can get X show on DVD and X show from iTunes for the same price, I'm buying the DVD. I'm not restricted to my computer when buying a DVD. Blu-ray is even more of a slam dunk. Smallville Season 8 is $25 on BD right now at Amazon. Same season in HD on iTunes (720p HD, not 1080p) is $60.

TV networks and studios can continue to balk at price cuts all they want. But they won't sell much more than they do now if their prices aren't more competitive for digital versions.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't get it. Aren't sales of TV shows way more profitable than selling ad time?

If you watch an episode online, how much does the advertiser pay the network for that one viewing? If you watch over cable or OTA network affiliate, how much does the studio get for each viewer?

The ad rate for web based content is very small compared to the ad rate for broadcast or cable TV. A good example is Hulu.com. Via ad sales Hulu generates enough revenue to be around the break even point and all Hulu does is redistribute already very popular content. If Hulu had to make enough money to cover the production costs of all the shows it streams the site would fold in a New York minute (production costs for an hour of script TV average around $3mill/per episode from what I've read).

An article I read last year pointed out that the iTunes store generated less the one percent of the revenue for hollywood movie studios which is one reason why online isn't getting much love as there's no money in it yet. A network or movie studio isn't going to risk pissing off the people that pay the bills (syndication, exclusive broadcast rights, VOD, DVD sales, etc.,) for the people that many or may not be able to pay the bills sometime in the indeterminate future (iTunes). As much as people like to curse the 'old media' dinosaurs it's the old media that continues to subsidize the existence of new media, especially video, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Once money starts coming in these guys will hop on board but until then what's the motivation to move from where the money is at to where the money is not? Also, they probably don't like that Apple has become, or is trying to become, the Walmart of online distribution.


Lethal

 

[MMX]

Assuming these prices are not for current seasons of shows, here's the funny part:

I don't buy DVDs of shows any more -- unless it's something much older that is only on DVD, like early SNL. I have a Blu-ray Disc player, so I'm getting my money out of it. However, keep an eye on Best Buy, Target, Amazon, etc. for sales. They run sales of $20 for DVD sets ALL THE TIME. I'm looking at Best Buy's ad for this week, and a pair of season sets of Supernatural and Smallville are $17. That's 77 cents per episode. The same Supernatural season on iTunes is $39.99 in SD.

OK, so if Best Buy can run this sale on the entire set, why would it be a sin for iTunes to do the same? Also, why are 4-minute music videos, 22-minute comedies and 44-minute dramas all the same price?

The long and short of it is iTunes video is rarely competitively priced. If I can get X show on DVD and X show from iTunes for the same price, I'm buying the DVD. I'm not restricted to my computer when buying a DVD. Blu-ray is even more of a slam dunk. Smallville Season 8 is $25 on BD right now at Amazon. Same season in HD on iTunes (720p HD, not 1080p) is $60.

TV networks and studios can continue to balk at price cuts all they want. But they won't sell much more than they do now if their prices aren't more competitive for digital versions.

You do understand that it's not iTunes fault? TV Networks and Studios are playing double hand.