reply to longtimecabl
Re: Subsidies? Though your explanation is good, I think it is deeper than that.
I have seen quotes by these execs before simply stating that offering it outside of the cable subscription will lower the perceived value to the cable companies thus making them want to pay less for it. That ultimately is why they tie their product and don't want to alienate their coffers.
For HBO, it should be a wash. They offer it standalone for the same price they offer it through cable. Those that dont want cable get it and being that the cable industry doesnt believe cord cutting is happening and a threat it is a wash to them as the person didnt subscribe to cable isnt costing the cable company a thing all the while giving HBO something.
I think he's saying the cable Cos are paying HBO during the free promotions, while the customer isn't (directly).
I'm sure there's a laziness factor, where people would drop a bunch of money on a bundle, but not bother with 10 different subscriptions direct to the content providers. The person choosing the cable subscriptions isn't always the one working to pay for it
That could be, but the bottom line is that they still get a vast majority of their money from subscribers and the rate is higher because they attach an artificially escalated value to the program by staying with cable.
It is basically a you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours deal like exclusivity, but without all the exclusiveness.