In January we launched TV One, a new cable network for African-American adults and others. Our goal is to reach this audience of more than 25 million Americans with qualityentertainment, lifestyle and public-affairs programming that is respectful of our history, culture and societal contributions. African-American adults are acutely underserved by television’s current offerings and many people have called on the media business to generate more channels to serve it.
The arrival of TV One has been widely applauded by African-American consumers and key executives in the advertising and cable/satellite industries. But we face a threat that could bring our efforts to a screeching halt. The Senate soon will consider two proposals that could put us and many other innovative cable networks out of business.
One proposal would require that cable and satellite companies sell all basic cable networks, such as TV One, on a channel-by-channel “a la carte” basis, instead of in a package. Anotherproposalwould require cable and satellite companies to offer a “family-friendly tier” of networks that would contain only content deemed “not objectionable” to families.
On the surface, both ideas sound appealing, but a deeper look can only lead to the conclusion that, if adopted, either would have a chilling effect on programming diversity in America.
To reach the audience to which our programming is directed, TV One and other networks need to be part of the “expanded basic” cable or satellite tier to which the majority of customers subscribe. Securing this carriage — with a potential advertising base of more than 80 million homes — allows us to sell national advertising. This ad revenue, along with the reasonable fees we must charge cable companies for carriage, allows us to provide high-quality programming.
Forcing cable and satellite companies to sell channels a la carte would instantly erode our potential advertising support, causing us to dramatically increase the per-subscriber fee we must charge. After all, how many of those 80 million homes would be likely to elect our service having never seen it, and pay several dollars a month for it? Probably only a small fraction would.
This deal doesn’t look good for the consumer either, especially African-Americans. On average, African-Americans watch 40 percent more television than the general population, and the largest portion of our entertainment dollar goes toward paying our cable and satellite bills. This cost is a substantial investment for any household, but subscribers ultimately would find themselves paying about the same amount — and possibly more — for just a handful of channels, rather than having hundreds from which to choose, as they do today.
I’m not the only one who’s recognized this outcome. The General Accounting Office studied the a-la-carte idea and concluded in a comprehensive report on cable pricing last fall: “If cable subscribers were allowed to choose networks on an a la carte basis, the economics of the cable industry could be altered, and if this were to occur, it is possible that cable rates could actually increase for some customers.”
The other vexing proposal would require the creation of a “family tier” of programming. Those proposing this idea appear to be well-motivated, but they have failed to answer fundamental questions. Who decides what channels are “family friendly?” Are the tastes and interests of African-American, Hispanic-American or Asian-American families considered? How many channels per tier, and how much should it cost? And what happens to my channel should the government, cable operator or satellite provider decide that it doesn’t fit into some ill-defined “family friendly” category? Does it mean we are “family un-friendly”? The government should not be making such decisions, any more than it should be decidingwhichopinion columns should be allowed to run in this newspaper.
One of the great promises of cable is that with its multi-channel universe we subscribers would not only have programming designed for us, but we also would have the ability to share other cultures, communities, styles and viewpoints. Would I order Lifetime, Fox News and HGTV in an a la carte world? Probably not, but I am glad I don’t have to make that decision. I love the fact that my cable company makes those channels available to me now to watch when I choose.
Such is the case with TV One. While our programming is designed primarily for African-Americans, the rest of society would enjoy watching us as well.
These two proposals are a classic case of solutions that are far worse than their perceived problems — unless, of course, one believes that higher prices, less choice and dwindling diversity in programming are desired results. Those who promote more diversity in today’s media marketplace would do these efforts, and enterprises such as mine, a fatal disservice by supporting or voting for any such proposal.
Alfred Liggins is chairman of TV One.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.