A report this morning by Peter Kafka saying that YouTube is in discussions with TV networks to allow it to stream programs, commercial-free, for $1.99 apiece suggests to me that TV networks are in a tight place when it comes to trying to charge for streaming TV episodes.

The $1.99 figure happens to be the same amount currently charged by iTunes and Amazon (for example) to download and own an episode. If there's no material difference in value, then it's pretty straightforward to conclude that such a YouTube initiative would likely fail. Consumers will quickly ask - why would I rent something one time for $1.99 when I can own it for the same price? The folks at YouTube must surely understand this too, and therefore be angling for something that would provide their rentals differentiated value vs. the current download-to-own models.

The $1.99 figure was set several years ago, likely pitched somewhat arbitrarily by Apple to TV networks to govern the original iTunes download deals. Apple no doubt wanted the price point to be low enough to spur download volume, which would in turn drive sales of video-enabled iPods, yet different enough from the $.99 it was charging for song downloads. At least some of the TV networks likely thought this price point was too low from the start (a position underscored when NBC temporarily pulled its programs off iTunes 2 years ago in order to obtain more pricing flexibility), but acquiesced because of their desire to experiment with digital delivery and their lust to get into business with Steve Jobs.

Now however, the $1.99 price point is pretty well cemented in consumers' minds. Because streaming inherently provides less value than a download (lower video quality, requirement to be connected, etc.), in order for paid streaming to succeed, an episode surely needs to be priced lower than $1.99. But because Hulu and the networks themselves provide programs for free, streaming access to many TV episodes is already a reality. Further, I suspect most TV executives would be loathe to charge $.99 or less for a streaming TV program, as it sets up the consumer perception (albeit an incorrect apples to oranges one) that a TV episode is worth less than a music download.

Given these circumstances, this suggests that pricing for streaming TV episodes likely needs to fall somewhere in the $1-$2 range to have any shot of success at all. Even in this range, I'm skeptical that standalone paid-for streaming episodes will catch on. Few consumers download programs in sufficiently high volume to have the potentially lower differential streaming pricing save them much money. In short, they'll be inclined to keep on buying and downloading, even if they perceive they won't watch the show more than once or twice. The real problem is that the download price was originally set too low. If it were higher - even $2.99 or $3.99 per episode - that would have created more headroom to stake out a value proposition for streaming.

Yet another issue is that TV Everywhere is going to provide streaming of many TV shows anyway. Granted you'll have to be a paying video subscriber, but if TV Everywhere marketers are clever, they'll be able to create the perception that the streaming episodes are "free" causing even more pressure on standalone paid-for streaming. Networks would likely be better off trying to figure out how to get a piece of the TV Everywhere action.

In general I'm a fan of experimentation, but in this case I'm hard-pressed to see how TV program streaming for a fee will succeed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.