Irrespective of the media buzz about "cord cutting" that is, dumping one's costly pay-TV service in favor of inexpensive online video sites such as Hulu and Vudu reasonably few people in fact do it. According to a current Nielsen report, only 5 million U.S. homes are predicted to shift away from conventional options of TV this year. That's less than 5%.
It can be safe to assume that many cable and satellite TV customers stay there because they get some thing from pay TV that they don't think they'll get on-line. And one of the biggest exclusives has been the original programming on HBO, like as "Game of Thrones" and "Girls." The network makes its shows available online via a service called HBO Go, but it's available only to people who subscribe to HBO via a pay-TV service.
On this week, HBO Chief Executive Richard Plepler reiterated his belief that the network should proceed to withhold its online feed from cord-cutters for now. But he told Reuters that the company may join with Internet service providers in offering broadband service bundled with HBO Go for an additional $10 to $15 a month.
That is more than Netflix charges for access to a significantly larger library of streaming video, but then, Netflix doesn't have "Game of Thrones." Or "Girls." Or any other HBO series, for that matter. It wouldn't make much sense financially for people to dump cable if it cost $10 a month or more to watch each of their favorite channels. But they might be willing to pay a premium for one or two channels with exceptional content, and HBO is unusually well positioned to make that pitch.
For Plepler, the vital question is how to prevent an a la carte offering online from diminishing the revenue the company receives from pay-TV services. But at least he seems willing to think about how to do that. In the past, HBO was so concerned about hurting its cable and satellite-TV partners that it wouldn't even entertain the idea of opening HBO Go up to people without a pay-TV subscription.
So, the time will cord-cutters have to wait? Evidently until someone shows HBO a plan that generates incremental profits rather than cannibalizing existing revenue. That's the gist of the comments that Jeff Bewkes, chief exective of HBO's parent company Time Warner, made about HBO Go earlier this month, relating to Home Media Magazine. And by someone, he meant a company other than Netflix, Amazon Prime or other subscription-based online video service.
Discriminating which services are incremental and which are cannibalistic has become a problem for media companies as they try to adapt to the broadband era. The major record labels are a good example; their fear of undermining CD sales caused them to wait far too long to grasp online distribution.
HBO could possibly open up access to HBO Go without worry of fomenting a cord-cutting trend; there are a good deal of other cable networks holding popular content back from the Website. Still, the number of people leaving pay TV is growing; according to Nielsen, 2 1/2 times as a many households are envisioned to fall into that category in 2013 as in 2007. Those numbers are still too small even to be regarded a niche, but the span of time will that be true?
It can be safe to assume that many cable and satellite TV customers stay there because they get some thing from pay TV that they don't think they'll get on-line. And one of the biggest exclusives has been the original programming on HBO, like as "Game of Thrones" and "Girls." The network makes its shows available online via a service called HBO Go, but it's available only to people who subscribe to HBO via a pay-TV service.
That is more than Netflix charges for access to a significantly larger library of streaming video, but then, Netflix doesn't have "Game of Thrones." Or "Girls." Or any other HBO series, for that matter. It wouldn't make much sense financially for people to dump cable if it cost $10 a month or more to watch each of their favorite channels. But they might be willing to pay a premium for one or two channels with exceptional content, and HBO is unusually well positioned to make that pitch.
For Plepler, the vital question is how to prevent an a la carte offering online from diminishing the revenue the company receives from pay-TV services. But at least he seems willing to think about how to do that. In the past, HBO was so concerned about hurting its cable and satellite-TV partners that it wouldn't even entertain the idea of opening HBO Go up to people without a pay-TV subscription.
So, the time will cord-cutters have to wait? Evidently until someone shows HBO a plan that generates incremental profits rather than cannibalizing existing revenue. That's the gist of the comments that Jeff Bewkes, chief exective of HBO's parent company Time Warner, made about HBO Go earlier this month, relating to Home Media Magazine. And by someone, he meant a company other than Netflix, Amazon Prime or other subscription-based online video service.
Discriminating which services are incremental and which are cannibalistic has become a problem for media companies as they try to adapt to the broadband era. The major record labels are a good example; their fear of undermining CD sales caused them to wait far too long to grasp online distribution.
HBO could possibly open up access to HBO Go without worry of fomenting a cord-cutting trend; there are a good deal of other cable networks holding popular content back from the Website. Still, the number of people leaving pay TV is growing; according to Nielsen, 2 1/2 times as a many households are envisioned to fall into that category in 2013 as in 2007. Those numbers are still too small even to be regarded a niche, but the span of time will that be true?
