I think people have only been asking for this for the last 10 years
- Thread starter theacoustician
- Start date
No, in fact, just last year, the FCC said bundling keeps costs down for consumers and encouraged it. New studies released today show that they were wrong.fly said:I thought this was already law as of 2 years ago.
theacoustician said:
Yeah, I saw the new studies.
I'd be curious to know why they think this will be cheaper. I would also be curious to know if this will kill off stations that will take a chance on new programming.
And what is to stop it at paying per channel? Why not just pay per show?
kiwi said:
If you recognize a witness as having acted anywhere else before then they are the killer. Everytime.
This is cheaper because they negotiate a license fee for every channel. Since some companies own large blocks of channels *cough*, they tend to force cable companies to buy ALL their channels when they only want 1 or 2. You end up paying for 8 channels from a content provider that even your cable company didn't think you wanted. On the per channel basis, this makes content licensing fees a little more honest.taeric said:
I'll explain the per show thing tonight at dinner.
theacoustician said:
That just leaves a slight fear in my mind that you will no longer have the channels that don't have a proven record. Right now content providers can try new things on channels people wouldn't otherwise buy because they are sliding it with the other channels.
If they are no longer able to do that, they could just stick with channels that only show the same drivel that I am not interested in.
Granted, people could start paying more attention to the stations and what content they typically produce. My fear is more that it will turn into the game industry. Where you have a couple (if not just one... bastards that are EA), and very few games that try new things. (Or old things, for that matter)
I guess what I'm saying is, how are people so sure this will be better?
It wont.
Remember how most channels make their money? By selling all their channels as a package. For instance, you wont get TV Land unless you also pick up Nick Game and Sports as well, because they know that in most cases nitch channels are rarely if ever watched. If anything it will stop the "call Viacom to keep them from taking your channels away from us" scares that have occured in the past few years but expect the amount of channels you actually have a choice in to drop too.
Remember how most channels make their money? By selling all their channels as a package. For instance, you wont get TV Land unless you also pick up Nick Game and Sports as well, because they know that in most cases nitch channels are rarely if ever watched. If anything it will stop the "call Viacom to keep them from taking your channels away from us" scares that have occured in the past few years but expect the amount of channels you actually have a choice in to drop too.
In the long run, it will help. What's the point of all this "choice" if the niche channels show nothing but crap? It will end up as survival of the fittest. Instead of companies allowing channels to work off corporate welfare, they have to earn their keep. It would also allow channels with small fanbases, but deep pockets to finance their channel of choice the way they see fit. You could pay a $1 and get Sci Fi, but would you be willing to pay $2.50 if you knew they would be able to put out more original programming like Battlestar Galatica?Ryokurin said:
It also allows low risk for cable providers to offer alternative channels. They only have to pay the content provider on a per unit basis instead of a % based on total subscribers and demographics. Maybe they don't feel like its worth it to pay TechTV Reborn $20,000 a month in licensing, but they'll make bandwidth available if they only have to pay per unit royality.
And its better that they air them for half a season out of order then cancel them?taeric said:
How is this model any different than how movies get produced?
Channels will still be funded by the parent company. That parent company will still invest disproportionately in certain projects if they think the return it there. This just leads to more accountability and more realistic feedback to content providers on who is watching.
theacoustician said:
At least they got aired.
And the difference is that many people that can afford to make a television show can not afford to make a movie. This could push the cost of a television show more inline with the smaller scale movies.
The sad truth is that shows like Firefly and Wonderfalls were incredibly expensive. They got cut as much from costs as anything else.
Now... I'm not entirely saying this is bad. Just different and has a lot of unknown to me. It could push television production to be more like movies, period, where a show directly makes money based on how marketable it is. Not on how susceptible to advertisements the demographic is. I mean, honestly, soap operas don't last because they make money, they last because the people watching them when they watch them are more open to advertisements. Same with game shows.
Well, with the advent of digital TV and non linear TV the cost to start up a channel has dropped significantly, its just more of an issue of getting people to carry it. I remember reading a few months ago about people shopping around ideas such as the Black Belt channel, Dog lovers channel and so forth but almost no one was interested unless it was via ondemand.
On the other hand it can also be used as a way to get someone else to take the risk to see if something works. The Anime Network for example started off as Non Linear and has done very well, often the most used channel on ondemand other than the premium channels. now its rumored that Comcast is planning on dropping it in favor of a US version of Animax, a Anime channel from Japan ran by Sony. (there is allready a connection between them. those free ondemand movies are provided by Sony. and Comcast footed a nice percentage of the cash needed to buy MGM for Sony)
Personally I think that the nich channels probably have a better chance streaming online now that most people get on via a broadband connection now since its way too easy for the cable company or some other major corporation to come in and force a "mom and pop" channel off the air because theres money in it. It will be interesting when someone steps up to the plate and does it seamlessly.
On the other hand it can also be used as a way to get someone else to take the risk to see if something works. The Anime Network for example started off as Non Linear and has done very well, often the most used channel on ondemand other than the premium channels. now its rumored that Comcast is planning on dropping it in favor of a US version of Animax, a Anime channel from Japan ran by Sony. (there is allready a connection between them. those free ondemand movies are provided by Sony. and Comcast footed a nice percentage of the cash needed to buy MGM for Sony)
Personally I think that the nich channels probably have a better chance streaming online now that most people get on via a broadband connection now since its way too easy for the cable company or some other major corporation to come in and force a "mom and pop" channel off the air because theres money in it. It will be interesting when someone steps up to the plate and does it seamlessly.
The only thing that is scary is that the creation of a good show is expensive. I compared it to the video game industry because I see it as similar. Programming a game is relatively easy at face value. Putting a game together that sells... that is hard and very costly. And it isn't the technical aspects that are the most expensive.
Well... before I say that, I do have to remember that development systems for the consoles are in the hundreds of thousands. Still, for studios that are developing more than one game, the main costs will get spent in art and storyboarding. The same is true for TV, I would think. Only, there you also have to pay actors and set specialists and whatnot. These costs aren't going to go away. No matter how cheap it is to stream your content.
Of course, if you are only interested in streaming content that someone else created, then your main cost is the bandwidth. In which case, being able to stream it is definitely cheaper than it used to be. (This is the case for the anime channel.) But this only strengthens my fear that new content will become even more of the same drivel under this market.
In a related topic, what does everyone think about commercials moving back into the shows?
Well... before I say that, I do have to remember that development systems for the consoles are in the hundreds of thousands. Still, for studios that are developing more than one game, the main costs will get spent in art and storyboarding. The same is true for TV, I would think. Only, there you also have to pay actors and set specialists and whatnot. These costs aren't going to go away. No matter how cheap it is to stream your content.
Of course, if you are only interested in streaming content that someone else created, then your main cost is the bandwidth. In which case, being able to stream it is definitely cheaper than it used to be. (This is the case for the anime channel.) But this only strengthens my fear that new content will become even more of the same drivel under this market.
In a related topic, what does everyone think about commercials moving back into the shows?
Syrup Beaver
pants log
I saw an episode of Firefly the other night. The one with Early the assassin. If networks would show more stuff like that I'd pay more. Most of that crap they've got though....probably not more than a buck or so.