If you had an inkling of hope that HBO might start moving away from cable and satellite providers, co-president Eric Kessler is here to extinguish that notion. As reported by mocoNews, Kessler said at an industry event today there was no chance his company's shows (True Blood, The Wire, Game of Thrones, and so on) would be made available to digital non-subscribers. (Starz, meanwhile, was rumored to be considering just such a move.) Kessler explained he thinks cord cutting is more of a temporary phenomenon that will go away when the economy improves, and that partnering with cable and satellite providers allows it to avoid transaction costs. Quoth Stringer Bell, "it's just business."
The company's great on-demand app HBO Go will remain tied to a cable / satellite account. Kessler said the adoption breaks down to 55 percent iPad and the remaining 45 percent split about evenly between iPhones and Android devices. Although opinions are of course subject to change, we get the feeling HBO's bottom line is well enough that this isn't a wavering thought. And of course, if you're patient enough, the company obviously has no problems selling episodes à la carte once the DVDs hit store shelves.

There are 79 Comments. Add yours.
“cord cutting is more of a temporary phenomenon”
The stupid is strong in this one.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:17 PM EST reply Recommend (33) Flag actions
Reeks of arrogance too.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:52 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yeah sounds like another company that’s not keeping up with the times. Like the music industry saying mp3s are a fad 10 yrs ago.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 5:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I really thought HBO was smarter than this. Also, I would gladly pay for HBO Go as a streaming service. Idiots I want to give you my money, not the cable companies!
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:18 PM EST reply Recommend (25) Flag actions
Exactly the comment I was going to leave..
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:39 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Basically, my situation is that I’d happily pay for an HBO online subscription, but never for cable. It’s their loss that I torrent their programming.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:42 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Companies keep giving us more and more reasons to cut the cable and yet wont embrace it. Most of all my media content is streaming. I use Netflix, Hulu, and Rdio. At one point I needed cable to order UFC PPVs. Now I can order them on youtube, yahoo, or Roku. They have an android app already that allows this. They just need to add it to Google TV.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It is crazy why these companies want to do business with these middle men we call cable and satellite companies.
Take my money.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HBO is owned by TimeWarner. This is why Kessler/HBO claims cord-cutting is a ‘fad.’ Purely fanciful company-speak — as though by saying it isn’t so, they can avoid the ‘difficult’ reality. Their viewership will fall, their shows will be pirated, and eventually, after losing many tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in unearned income which they could have made by licensing their hit shows for online viewing, they’ll accept reality. But, I think this will take several years.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 7:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, pretty short-sighted. HBO’s content is good, but not good enough that I’m willing to pay the cable company $100 so I can have the privilege of paying HBO another $15. I’d be willing to pay HBO directly and stream it on Apple TV or Roku.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:44 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I stated my case at http://www.hbo.com/#/about/contact-us.html
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
This is disappointing
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:21 PM EST via iPhone app reply Recommend Flag actions
I love HBO but screw the cable companies. I already have to deal with their monopolistic bums to get internet service. HBO is losing out on so much money but i imagine this is being said to appease their Lords, the cable companies.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:58 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, this is an interesting statement given how you can just get HBO through iTunes or on disc if you’re patient. I don’t mind being behind a season or two and am happy to just get discs on Netflix.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:19 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Exactly. And I don’t mind paying a premium for HBO’s shows. Because they wait a year to release the digital versions all I have to do is wait another 30 days and I can rent them. They could be making 40 bucks off of me if they sold their shows in a timely manner. Instead they make pennies from my Netflix disc rentals.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:44 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No surprise. The cable companies are paying HBO a shit-ton for exclusivity, so I don’t expect to see HBO as a stand-alone product anytime soon. Regardless, I’m not going back to cable just for HBO.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“Kessler explained he thinks cord cutting is more of a temporary phenomenon that will go away when the economy improves”
we’ll see about that…
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:25 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Cord cutting may somewhat be the result of tightening our budgets, but after people make the switch what reason would they have to go back to blowing $100+/month on cable?
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
yep, especially if you only follow a handful of shows.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I work for FedEx, after the economy went bad companies went to 2nd day air instead of overnight, FedEx expects 80% NEVER to go back to overnight even if the economy improves because 2nd day is still fast, and they save $$$$, HBO is making a horrible mistake, it is mind-boggling.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:41 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
But I want to give you my money, you make great content over at HBO. If and when the economy improves wihy would I go back to Cable if each passing month we have more viable streaming options. “Shakes head and walks away”
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:25 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
And how much do you want to give them? Cause right now they get ~$20 per month per subscriber. Are you willing to pay that much?
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If I don’t have to get a $80/mo cable sub just to pay them the $20, then hell yes.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:40 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Most cable companies will allow you to subscribe to a “Broadcast Basic” plan costing around $15/mo, then add HBO on top of that for another $15/mo.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Not Comcast. You need a digital cable box.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:05 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yes comcast will let you do it because I have basic cable for $12 and hbo for $15 a month I live in Oregon and you can also do it in Washington. Just call and ask and be nice to the CSR they they will make it happen
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m sure not everyone would, but I certainly would, especially if I could get the on-demand archives that HBO Go offers.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No way does HBO recieve $20/mo/sub, unless you’re counting both HBO and Cinemax.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s like $12 right?
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sorry, you’re right Cinemax was counted in that number, however transmission fees paid by distributors are also left out of that number.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think a lot of people would pay $20 for HBOGo the problem is that’s what they’re getting from you as a cable subscriber god only knows how much the cable company is also paying them to keep there channel as an option.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This is most insightful…
HBO knows what it’s doing. They have leverage against the cable carriers and can demand a premium to keep their channel exclusive. They will cut the so-called cord with the cable carriers as soon as they calculate greater profitability by removing that exclusivity.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
i would gladly pay that much for HBO Go
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I thought they were getting close to $12 a month per subcriber.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HBO doesn’t get all of what you pay the cable company. Comcast, Time Warner et al take their cut out of that.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ummm i would totally pay $20 a month for Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire!
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Avoid transaction costs?
Motherfucker, I wil pay your transaction costs – that’s what subscriber fees are for.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hmm. I don’t think he gets it. I can afford cable. The economy has nothing to do with me not wanting to pay a cable company for content. It’s has everything to do with their ancient methods for distribution.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:30 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Exactly.
I don’t pay for cable because there is nothing but crap shows on crappy delivery systems.
And I’m not going to pay that much money just for OnDemand…
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:42 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sweet, way to stay in 2009 HBO. Nice!
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder how long until they realize that since the generation growing up today doesn’t want to pay for cable, they won’t be able to legally pay for HBO content and instead will resort to other means?
Oh well, their loss.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:35 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Just because someone is willing to steal your property that doesn’t mean you should just leave it all on the front porch.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not a valid comparison. It would be more like:
You are a farmer. You have a barn full of produce. You could sell to the general public, but you have a nice lucrative deal with the supermarket. The local supermarket only offers a subscription plan, and an expensive one at that. They have divided the supermarket into different subscription plans at various prices.
On the bottom tier, people have access to low-quality, overly-processed food. This is the cheapest option, but with an intentionally horrid selection. The next tier up comes with all the items of the lower tier, but also includes a handful of quality ingredients, but the majority of this tier consists of mediocre foodstuffs.
The final tier is the exclusive, expensive tier. That’s where you are. Your farm produces some of the best food on the market. People pay a premium to get it. However, many people have decided they only want your ingredients. They don’t want to pay for all the processed food and mediocre ingredients just to get to yours.
You say no. You like the exclusivity. You like the fat check you get from the supermarket.
So, people feel cheated now that they know about the deal you’re running. So, in response, they’ve invented a device that lets them make perfect copies of your produce. At first this doesn’t bother you, because you think “no harm, I still have my deal with the supermarket”. But then you start to lose business; people start using this device more and more, and before you know it, your subscriber numbers begin to slow.
You try suing the people who use this produce cloning device, but now that everyone uses it, your customers see you in an agressive light. Using the produce cloning device has become so easy at this point, people don’t even feel bad about using it on your barn because you’re that kind of company.
All of this because you wanted to restrict the market so that customers had no other choice but to pay for lower-quality goods that they never wanted anyway.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:33 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
OMAR! #THEWIRE
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:37 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
He is Chucky White (#Boardwalk Empire)
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Chucky? I thought it was Chalky or Chalkie… guess I need to get my hearing checked.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Kessler said at an industry event today there was no chance his company’s shows (True Blood, The Wire, Game of Thrones, and so on) would be made available to digital non-subscribers.”
I love this line.. does he not realize that some people out there are very much willing to get the content any way it is available. Some people are willing to pay for content, myself included. I like many other non-subscribers as he kindly called us know how to get his content.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe if they provided some actual quality writing and shows, I’d be willing to pay for cable. It has nothing to do with economy, and all about how horrible today’s shows are. I’m very happy in rerun land on Netflix.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Oh yes, of course Mr. Kessler…….
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:44 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
That’s just splendid, Mr. Kessler! Continue to pirate your shows, I will. When you want my money, let me know.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m sure this is what Border’s said about e-readers
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:46 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Borders was killed by Amazon’s business model of devaluing content and using it to drive purchases of higher margin items, e-readers had nothing to do with it.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Explain Barnes & Noble then? They’ve stayed in business because they adopted to a changing medium.
Same thing happened to Blockbuster.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
B&N is still in business because there is still a place in the market for a single nationwide brick and mortar book seller, just not two.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think so. IIRC, Borders got into the e-reader market with Kobo, didn’t they?
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They did, but they didn’t do it soon enough to save their business model. Plus, they (Borders) didn’t really provide the same quality of digital services B&N and Amazon have to go with the ereaders.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 10:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
when will the content suppliers learn…
can’t the movies, tv show, and books biz learn from the music industry or are they all too thick-headed?
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 1:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The problem is that they can’t make the content people want to see without money , and people who primarily consume media on the internet are willing to pay between jack and s**t for content, no matter how good or expensive.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
+ 1 for The Wire
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s really not HBO’s decision to make at this point. They receive 100% of their revenue from distribution agreements with MSOs/MVPDs and would seriously threaten those relationships by going direct-to-consumer with HBO Go. It’s not worth it to them to pick up a handful of direct subscribers and lose many many many cable households.
What I can see happening, though, is the addition of HBO Go (and similar TVEverywhere services) to MSO Broadband packages. So, say you have Comcast High Speed Internet but not Cable TV. No problem, you’ll just pay Comcast an extra $20/mo on your broadband subscription and they’ll give you access to their TVEverywhere platform.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This is a highly likely scenario, just as DirectTV offers the Sunday Ticket in a broadband only package, I can see the MSOs offering, as you said, a “Broadband Package” although I think the $20 will only cover the basic and extended channels not the premiums.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I love HBO and all its exclusive shows, not with HBO for their movies. So if HBO thinks 5 series with less than 14 episode is a good enough reason for me to pay an atrocious amount to cable then another $15, then they are joking. 2012 i am getting comcast high speed internet and thats it.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why should we expect him to say anything else at an industry event? Not the place to make a new announcement of such magnitude
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
True. I’m sure the record companies kissed wal-marts ass right up to the day they started kissing Apple’s (ie the day the balance of power shifted). The day that HBO can make more money by selling season passes on apple tv or amazon will be the day they tell the cable companies maybe they need to start seeing other people.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:03 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Meanwhile I still cannot use my HBOgo on Cablevision.
I despise cable providers. They make everything so difficult.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:39 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes, after I see what a wonderful stress free experience I get from my Apple TV or Roku or Xbox I’m really going to want to return to then clusterfrak world of crappy Cable company DVRs, overpriced restrictive content bundles, and horrible customer service.
If they think people dream about kicking their cable company to the curb just for money then they are truly delusional.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:50 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
At least they are thinking mobile… but HBO needs to be on revolutionary front.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why? HBO, a unit of Time Warner, has no incentive to be a character in your anti-cable jeremiad. They will stay cable-only until the bean counters tell them they can make more money another way.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Just came to say that Omar Little is one of the best characters in Television history.
On an aside, I REALLY wish HBO would work with NetFlix or someone to offer streaming.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed and agreed. I remember where I was when I saw Omar killed. My roommate and I were really into The Wire. He got up to get something and was away from the TV when Omar was shot. I remember I felt like I was going into shock and couldn’t believe one of my favorite TV characters was just terminated. My buddy ran in yelling in disbelief.
Does that make me sad or is it just a testament to Omar?
- I remember where I was when 9/11 happened
- I remember where I was when Obama was elected
- I remember where I was when Omar was killed on The Wire.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re sitting on a gold mine Trebek!!
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 2:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This decision isn’t surprising at all to me, and it’s not because HBO is stupid or fearful of the future. It’s entirely possible that their additional revenue from streaming-only customers would be less than the revenue lost from traditional cable-based customers. HBO is expected to make about $4 billion in 2011 from 28 million subscribers, so they get about $12 per month per subscriber. But they get significantly more per subscriber than do other premium cable networks due to preferential deals with distributors, which one would expect to become less lucrative if HBO Go is offered to non-subscribers. Yes, they could get some people to subscribe for a streaming plan, but how would it affect their bottom line? That’s all that matters to HBO.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No why did you have to go and bring reality into this conversation? :-P. What’s most frustrating is that as long as the cable companies are HBOs customer (instead of us the actual customers), none of this is going to change.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:07 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
This is pretty devastating. Some of the best content on television is on HBO. If HBO created their own subscription service, canceling cable would be a lot easier of a decision.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ha!
That is literally a jaw-dropping statement.Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 4:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HBO is the ONLY reason I have a cable subscription!!!
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I cut my cable years ago and haven’t looked back.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Further proof that the Grey hairs in charge of these companies need to talk to their grandchildren. The thought that streaming is a fad is like saying the iPod would be a fad. This man needs to understand that he is a content creator. They need to cut the middleman to create a real profit and change the world of TV forever.
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 7:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HBO you have two choices: make it easy for users to subscribe to your content online and on streaming devices (xbox, apple tv, etc.) OR have them pirate the content and get it for free… I think, HBO, you do not realize how many people are watching your content through internet thievery… because we, viewers, have more than the two options of buying cable and getting HBO OR not buying cable and not getting HBO… its called a torrent… wake up and smell the 21st century
Posted on Nov 30, 2011 | 9:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.