Cable Exec Suggests Changing Consumer Behavior, Not Business Model

Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it. Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "get consumers to change" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand. "'An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"

Comments

How stupid can he possibly be?

[winkydink]

Ask any IT professional what's the hardest thing to change?

User behavior.

Technology is supposed to make out lives easier, not the other way around.

Might I be the first

[ericrost]

Might I be the first to give a gigantic "Whoosh!" in Comcast's general direction. I cut that cord a few years ago and with the help of MythTV, Boxee, Hauppage, Turtle Beach, Netflix, and Xbox Live have never looked back for a second.

Re:WE must change?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I would have modded the story a troll, if possible. There are two ways of looking at things that are not contradictory. Changing business plans and changing consumer behavior. While he is proposing to change consumer behavior, obviously the only way he has to do that is through their product line up ( ie changing his business model). Like the whole super sizing of popcorn at movie theaters. its 4.59 for small (8 oz), 4.75 for a medium (12 oz), or 4.80 for a large(24 oz). The product is set up to sell a large volume of popcorn. If he made all sizes an equal price per oz, then that would likely change consumer behavior towards buying smaller sizes of popcorn. In fact the current model was designed to get people to buy popcorn at a high price, but think of it as a value. Tricky, huh.

So the business model will most definitely change, but most likely not in a way that will make any of us ( with brains ) happy. Then agian, I don't watch tv much. Already pulled that plug a while ago.

Re:It's way too late for change

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I lived in a house for a year with six other 18-25 year olds.

We had no TV.

Well, we did have a TV, but you couldn't watch TV on it. It was rigged up to a PS3, Xbox, Wii, and when neccessary, laptops. We played games, watched downloaded films and TV shows, the odd youtube video, in fact on occasion and actual webpage. We'd get a hanking for a show, say Heroes, we'd download the whole thing in one slurp at watch it all. Come Halloween, it was Friday 13th marathon(Do not watch 4). The TV was not even rigged up to terrestrial channels. If I'd been so inclined, I would have set up a central server we could have all thrown our movies, etc onto. Bit of a missed opportunity now that I think of it.

I can actually remember sitting down to watch TV for a fews hours, or waiting for a good show to come on that evening, and I swear its like I'm remembering a past life. The idea to me now, of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour, sitting through all those ads, actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion. I cannot imagine doing it anymore, and I don't.

It's going to be very difficult to explain to the generation currently growing up exactly how we managed to waste so much time in front of the TV. If they see what we had to put up with, they're just never going to believe it. When the time comes, and they are asked to stump up $50 a month for such garbage, they are literally going to laugh in the face of the likes of Comcast. The notion of TV itself will be absurd to them, let alone paying for it. It will be as absurd to them as those old 1950's informational shorts are to us now.

This business model has perhaps, 20 years before the bottom falls out, and this article shows that the know it.

Re:Perspective

[zzsmirkzz]

You should check out Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray. I was completely and utterly shocked to see the disk go straight to the movie when popped-in. No FBI warning, no previews, no commercials, no menu, just the movie, starting to play automatically. It was awesome. Now to get all future movies designed in this very way.

Re:Just release TV shows for free

[killmenow]

But advertising does work, period. Not all ads work. But in general, companies pay billions of dollars to advertise because it makes them billions more. If it didn't, advertising wouldn't be a multi-billion-dollar industry. Even people with DVRs are not fast forwarding through commercials as much as producers and advertisers feared. Now, there's no guarantee people are watching those commercials. My twelve year old daughter likes for me to mute the commercials and we take turns making up our own audio. It's usually a lot of "look at this car. isn't it a cool car. it costs more than you can afford. Look at it drive in ways you can't safely drive. it's an awesome car you can't have...and here's a cute girl...sell everything you own and buy our car."

I'm always at a loss for what to say when the Cialis commercials come on.

Re:Perspective

[Red Flayer]

Perhaps you're forgetting the fundamental law of free markets: The customer is always right.

That's not the fundamental law of free markets. That's the fundamental law of customer service.

The fundamental law of free markets is: there is no such thing as an ideal free market.

But that's semantics, the meat of your post is:

As the vendor, you either offer what the customer wants, at the price they want it, or you go out of business.

And the foundation of TFA is that it's possible to change what the customer wants. This is what marketing is all about.

The big 3 automakers were successful at this for a very long time. When they were no longer able to shape demand, then they failed because they were unprepared for what people actually wanted to buy. But it amazes me that they were so successful for so long.

Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear

[dgatwood]

Easier, even. With a multi-million-dollar company, it's small enough that if you screw up, you might bankrupt the company. That means that you have to be at least moderately familiar with what's going on in the company. With a multi-billion-dollar company, you have a dozen divisions that are each multi-million-dollar companies, each run by someone who has to think the same way.

Up a tier, however, the management of each division is left to the VP for the division. Half the time, the CEO doesn't even know what the company makes. It really doesn't matter at that level. They just have to know enough to understand what the VP means when they ask the VP why the division is losing money and when they expect to get back on track, or at least enough to know if they're getting a snow job from their underlings....

Tell you what, put me in charge of such a cable company at 10% of this clown's salary. I'll show you how it's done. The right fix for cable companies is to tear down about ten layers of management between the top brass and the people who know what's going on, spend money on building out data infrastructure further, and finding new services to offer that make your offerings more attractive. I have many ideas for new services that I'd roll out if I were running a cable company, any one of which would make a huge difference in users' lives and would significantly cut down on piracy by doing so. Of course, the notion of piracy when you have a cable signal coming in at a flat rate is absurd anyway, and always has been....

Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear

[Maxo-Texas]

Shakani,
In china, there are 1,200 equally qualified people to the executive in question. With such a gross oversupply of talent, the only reason we are paying these bozo's extra is that the current shareholder laws have removed all shareholder power to do anything about it.

Likewise, with regard to the article, there is an *ENORMOUS* amount of entertainment. This presents two problems for the potential consumer.

a) Most of us are able to spend, maybe, $200 to $400 a month on entertainment. Filling an Ipod would take $10,000. Do the math. Consumers are not going to cripple their life to fill an ipod. They will find a way around that price point. Once they *lose* the songs on the ipod and are asked to lay down ANOTHER $10,000 for the same songs- they get really pissy. yet this is the primary goal of the entertainment industry- rental payments anytime you use any entertainment until "forever-- less one day".

b) On the flip side, the sheer amount of entertainment is exploding. I spent 3 hours the other night just watching homemade stuff for free on Youtube. And there were a couple hours spent watching Star Wreck. There are cable stations with real programs, there are multiple real programs, which I'll never see. I ruthlessly trade down to less expensive entertainment and, in many cases, simply wait 6 to 8 months and get the same entertainment for pennies legally. The price of entertainment is not supportable-- too many people want our entertainment dollar.