Many of today’s ‘basic’ cable bundles still reach triple digits, both in terms of price and number of channels offered. That’s at the heart of the cable industry’s woes, as consumers can’t stand it. This system forces them to pay high prices each month, and forces them to take dozens of channels that they never intend to watch. It’s a sweet deal for TV networks owning multiple channels, since a single popular channel like ESPN can be used to push attach a slew of other less popular ones (and their associated per-subscriber fees) to cable customers’ lineups. That’s how you end up with an average cable bill of $86 a month, and consumers are getting pretty tired of it.
Enter the cord-cutting trend. With online video services coming along, consumers quickly realized that they could pay much less each month and still have plenty to watch. At first their selection was rather limited, but it began to make more sense to pay less and be limited, than to pay so much more and be awash in unwanted channels. Several cable networks have started to wise up, putting their own content online, either for free, for for a fee as a standalone subscription. Virtual pay-TV providers have also begun to crop up, like Sling TV which offers a dozen or so channels via the web for a low $20 a month. Suddenly a compelling TV package can be assembled from these options for a fraction of the cost of the bloated cable bundle. And many are doing just that.
Since web-delivered television, which is gaining popularity, is already effectively unbundled, some experts believe that cable will one day be forced to follow suit. That means, if not offering channels on an à la carte basis, at least offering much smaller bundles. That will mean less profits or major adjustments for the big networks. Time Warner, for example, won’t be able to count on cable bundles to force millions of customers without children to continue paying for the Cartoon Network. Univision likely won’t find its way into many primarily English-speaking households. Disney won’t be able to bundle regional sports channels like the SEC Network with their flagship ESPN. For several media groups like Disney, TimeWarner, Viacom, and A&E Networks, each owning channels that appeal to widely different demographic groups, that represents a big problem.
This is why many companies have been in a mad dash to get an online service of some kind up and running. In a span of about a week last year, HBO, CBS, and Univision all announced standalone services, with Viacom’s Nickelodeon following earlier this year. But while big name networks can continue to succeed that way, question marks remain when it comes to lesser-known networks. Among those networks is plenty of content that viewers will want to watch. But if given the choice, will they pay a regular monthly fee to do so? That’s far less likely. The media companies hope to do everything in their power to avoid simply taking a huge hit to their revenues as the cable continues to fray.
Fortunately for the television industry, Rabbit TV Plus offers a unique solution to the multitude of challenges facing content creators. Rather than play the middleman like the cable companies have, resulting in the skyrocketing price and subsequent exodus from pay-TV, Rabbit TV Plus is an open platform for monetizing media content of all kinds. Made up of a combination of free/ad-supported, premium subscription-based, and pay-per-view content, Rabbit TV Plus offers content creators multiple options for turning their content into revenue. Perhaps most importantly, Rabbit TV Plus aggregates an audience of over 3.5 million users, connecting them with the what they want to watch, and delivering those all-important eyeballs to the content. Putting content online is easy, but getting viewers to it can be difficult. Rabbit TV Plus takes care of that, making it effortless to monetize content and grow an audience.