how-to block ads
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to marigolds
Re: a la carte won't save most people any money
ESPN and others will simply need to renegotiate their fees or be forced to charge unreasonable fees for their services to those that do want it. Since this would hurt them and the events wanting to be broadcasted I think they will easily come to terms on this.
I agree many channels will lose subscribers as they should (and be cancelled), but many will also gain subscribers. I know people, including myself, that do not have certain channels because we would have to purchase another package that has several others we don't want. To me the cost for all those "extras" is not worth it for the very few channels I want.
Beyond local channels their are only about 8 or 12 other channels I would get. Only about 6 of those would be for myself and my wife, the rest for my kids. Sure I am willing to pay more for HD and DVR service, but is it worth an additional $12 a month on top of the already bloated fees I pay now? I personally say no, but I may reconsider that when I can get the channels I want for less then I have to pay for all the crap I get now. | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah  :Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable. By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true? Let's carry all the way to the extremes, using the model you posted. So if only 3% of the subscribers get ESPN, then it would cost 126.56/month per subscriber. That's what the math comes out to. So of course, ESPN still gets the same revenue with only 3% of the people willing to pay for it? ESPN BY ITSELF could not support the rates it is charging. Even at 100% subscription, it's getting 3.90/person. Please explain how I, the customer, am forced to pay 3.90/month for something I don't want. If I use the corporate apologists argument of 'it's not necessary', then YES, I agree with them. I don't want ESPN! I don't want to pay for ESPN! I WANT to vote with my pocketbook, but wait, I CAN'T. Cause I can't get the channels I DO want to vote for with my money unless it comes in a package with ESPN. If you don't see the total hypocrisy of the corporate apologists line there, then you must be blind. His logic is not that flawed, it is just missing an element. ESPN has to get the same amount of revenue because they have to pay for all of those sports programming contracts.
If ESPN was getting only 3% of the subscriber base, they would cut back significant on their program offerings so that their costs can meet their revenue. Keep in mind, if ESPN were forced to drop these offerings they would just end up going to the broadcast networks who have must-carry status and they still would come out of your pocketbook. And ESPN gets way more than $3.90/person. Somewhere close to $11/person in ESPN/ESPN II areas and $15/person in ESPN/ESPN/Classic areas. Sounds like a lot, but its no more than HBO.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable. By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true? It's not really my logic. It's the FCC and content provider's logic. I'm not saying that they will get exactly the same amount no matter how many subscribe.
I think it would be safe to presume that under a la carte pricing, many channels would see a reduced number of subscribers. Just because the channel has fewer subscribers doesn't mean the operating expenses also decrease. They would stay more or less the same. However, since the channel will have fewer viewers, advertisers won't pay as much for fewer eyes watching. So the channel loses money in the process. That lost revenue has to come from somewhere, so they have to raise rates to create a balance.
ESPN charging $126 is absurd. Obvisouly they can't sustain a viable business charging those rates. If they were to do that they would price themselves out of business. But charging $15 I think is within the realm of a possibility.
With a la carte pricing, I will guarantee you that there will be fewer overall choices in channels because many of the small niche channels will essentially price themselves out of existence.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to cdru
Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable.
By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true?
Let's carry all the way to the extremes, using the model you posted. So if only 3% of the subscribers get ESPN, then it would cost 126.56/month per subscriber. That's what the math comes out to. So of course, ESPN still gets the same revenue with only 3% of the people willing to pay for it?
ESPN BY ITSELF could not support the rates it is charging. Even at 100% subscription, it's getting 3.90/person. Please explain how I, the customer, am forced to pay 3.90/month for something I don't want. If I use the corporate apologists argument of 'it's not necessary', then YES, I agree with them. I don't want ESPN! I don't want to pay for ESPN! I WANT to vote with my pocketbook, but wait, I CAN'T. Cause I can't get the channels I DO want to vote for with my money unless it comes in a package with ESPN. If you don't see the total hypocrisy of the corporate apologists line there, then you must be blind.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
|
