For sports fans, this weekend was chock-a-block with choice – baseball playoffs, golf, football (NCAA, NFL, CFL) and hockey. It was the perfect showcase for high-definition technology, which makes watching sports on TV a completely different experience.
Unfortunately, HD still has low penetration among couch potatoes even though there are an increasing number of programs being broadcast in HD. The biggest adoption obstacle are the cablecos and satellite-TV companies that continue to insist that consumers pay an additional fee for the privilege of having HD. While it’s not a high cost – $5 to $10 a month – a lot of consumers have decided they can live without HD.
The decision to charge extra for HD is a mistake. For one, it’s impeding the adoption of HD. Two, it’s the wrong approach from a marketing/sales perspective. It’s not HD that people will payfor, it’s the channels that feature HD. For example, if HD channels were bundled together – say NFL games – for a few dollars over a non- HD package, consumers might be happy to pay for the programming as opposed to technology.
As Jack Myers points out, HD also drives sales of digital set-top boxes, which make it easier for consumers to purchase premium packages and services such as video-on-demand. If marketed and sold differently, HD could become ubiquitous in a very short period of time – particularly given the upgrade cycle happening as consumers buy new large-screen TVs that are HD-ready.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
The Slow Embrace of HD
For sports fans, this weekend was chock-a-block with choice – baseball playoffs, golf, football (NCAA, NFL, CFL) and hockey. It was the perfect showcase for high-definition technology, which makes watching sports on TV a completely different experience.
Unfortunately, HD still has low penetration among couch potatoes even though there are an increasing number of programs being broadcast in HD. The biggest adoption obstacle are the cablecos and satellite-TV companies that continue to insist that consumers pay an additional fee for the privilege of having HD. While it’s not a high cost – $5 to $10 a month – a lot of consumers have decided they can live without HD.
The decision to charge extra for HD is a mistake. For one, it’s impeding the adoption of HD. Two, it’s the wrong approach from a marketing/sales perspective. It’s not HD that people will payfor, it’s the channels that feature HD. For example, if HD channels were bundled together – say NFL games – for a few dollars over a non- HD package, consumers might be happy to pay for the programming as opposed to technology.
As Jack Myers points out, HD also drives sales of digital set-top boxes, which make it easier for consumers to purchase premium packages and services such as video-on-demand. If marketed and sold differently, HD could become ubiquitous in a very short period of time – particularly given the upgrade cycle happening as consumers buy new large-screen TVs that are HD-ready.