posted
I'm sure this has been suggested elsewhere, but I'm not sure what the arguments against it are. Frankly I can't think of any off the top of my head, so I was wondering what everyone else thought.
The big networks are in a freefall, it's no secret. The troubles at NBC are just a much publicized case of a larger problem. Cable networks like USA are creeping into the vacuum, but they'll never replace where NBC, ABC and CBS were at their historic heights.
For a long time I've wondered why cable providers kept us from just picking and choosing what stations we wanted to watch, a la carte. I only watch maybe a dozen stations, and on a regular basis, that drops down to more like five stations. Yet I have to pay for dozens. Near as I can tell, that argument problem stems from the fact that if I wasn't helping to subsidize the less watched stations, they simply wouldn't have enough subscribers to stay in business, so we all pay for everything and just watch what we want.
What I'm wondering is, why not switch to some sort of pay-per-episode format? I'm thinking specifically of a show like Chuck. Chuck has a relatively small core audience of a few million viewers who watch the show religiously, and fought tenaciously to get it back on the air. Now Chuck is more expensive than most shows for its viewership, and had to cut out a lot even with Subway's sponsorship picking up the slack in order to come back this season. But if every viewer paid a dollar an episode, that'd be millions of dollars for them to make every episode with. I know they can make an episode of chuck for $5 million an episode. They can make it for far less than that. And if we download the content from the internet, that bypasses the hassle of dealing with cable companies.
We pay at least a dollar an episode when we buy it on dvd anyway, wouldn't we be willing to pay a dollar to make sure it gets made in the first place? Especially knowing that in the long run, we're really saving. I don't watch that many programs, and our cable bill, even excluding internet, would be cut in half if I merely paid a dollar, or even two dollars, for every show that I watched.
Near as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to something like this is start-up costs. Who pays for a show they've never seen before? In my mind, that would turn the major studios into television investment companies. They could put up the money to start up the show, but not be responsible for advertising or for pushing it on the cable companies. All they have to do is front the money, and let the internet basically take care of the rest. Cable companies like USA manage to create absolutely amazing scripted dramas and dramadies for less than the major networks do. I know that quality thus, is not automatically tied to higher costs.
So what other obstacles are there? Why would this model not work?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, an issue is that of those millions of Chuck viewers, many of them don't necessarily care enough about the show to pay per episode. I like Chuck, but I only watch it because it comes free with things I was paying for anyway (namely, the internet via Hulu). People paying for real TV are paying for the ability to watch some shows they really care about as well as the ability to turn on background noise whenever they're bored or need some sound in the room. Knowing that you're spending money each time you watch something could be a turnoff.
Right now we have Hulu/Netflix and iTunes. I think Hulu-like services will gradually become more standard over the next decade, but they won't be enough to pay for the kind of content we're used to. And my understanding is Apple takes a significant chunk of the iTunes money.
What would probably be a good system is for Hulu to include a "pay for individual high quality download" option rather than going for a subscription service (which I think is what they were planning on doing for premium content).
Couple that with a meter by each show that says "we need to make this much money by the end of the season in order to start filming the next season," so that people can see a direct connection between their actions and the success of shows that they really care about. I was willing to spend $120 on Terminator (pre-ordering a DVD for myself, buying it on iTunes so I could watch it in the meantime whenever I wanted, and getting another copy for a friend as a Christmas present), but I know that a lot of that money went towards middle men rather than actually paying for the show.
A central website that independent producers can use that cuts out as much middle-management as possible, and promotes transparency on what the budgets actually are and what they need to be successful, I think would help a lot.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You hit the nail on the head with the evaluation of profits that the industry makes. They're not going to give up a good racket to try the 'ala carte' system without good incentive.
The level of control that cable companies exert through their local monopolies will also prevent any changes from occurring. If there was true competition between the cable companies in the same geographical areas, then you might have a better chance of seeing some changes.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about a "pay per episode" system, but I would seriously consider a "pay per season" subscription system. If I could pay $20 a month to see The Daily Show and some of the more interesting shows on Showtime and HBO without having to pay for Fox News or CBN, I'd certainly be more likely to consider it. Maybe with a Netflix-style "You are a subscriber to x,y,z; other viewers of these shows have become subscribers to a,b,c, and thematically, the new show w might be right up your alley"?
There's definitely an increasing sense that DVRs are the death knell for standard, commercial-funded TV.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a long time I've wondered why cable providers kept us from just picking and choosing what stations we wanted to watch, a la carte.
It's mainly the content providers, actually, that force the cable companies to pay them for VH1 and BET and MTV2 if they want MTV, or Discovery Kids and Discovery Animals if they want the standard Discovery Channel. It turns out that the vast majority of Americans only watch about 15 to 20 channels on a regular basis; the rest are pure niche programming. So the popular stations are used to subsidize all the other "hundreds" of channels that the cable and satellite providers advertise as options.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a long time I've wondered why cable providers kept us from just picking and choosing what stations we wanted to watch, a la carte. I only watch maybe a dozen stations, and on a regular basis, that drops down to more like five stations. Yet I have to pay for dozens. Near as I can tell, that argument problem stems from the fact that if I wasn't helping to subsidize the less watched stations, they simply wouldn't have enough subscribers to stay in business, so we all pay for everything and just watch what we want.
For us it's all about the money. We just cancelled our local cable company ($119/month for basic cable channels + internet) and went with Direct TV's family package plus HBO, and the phone company's wireless internet service ($65/month after the first few months where we're paying a little more for the modem). That's almost a $50/month savings.
Now, Direct TV has a 1 year promo of one of their higher packages for the same price, so we're not missing anything for this year, plus we get HBO for well under the price we were paying through the cable company.
But once that promo expires and we move to the family package, I'll really only miss Comedy Central, SyFy (oh, that name!), and CNN/MSNBC.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, we're paying $39.99 a month for dry-loop DSL, are using a VOIP provider at a rate of six cents a minute, and either rent DVDs or download any programming we want to watch. Not counting cellphones, this means that our TOTAL monthly information costs come to about $46.
I wish -- oh, how I wish -- cellphone plans in this country were priced like they are in, well, pretty much any other civilized country besides Canada. But they aren't. So there's a separate category of about $60 a month for our two cellphones, as much as that irritates me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things are very slow to change. We seem so deeply entrenched in our current system -- I guess everyone has their fingers in the pot and lots of people would have to shift focus or fold if we made serious changes.
But I really do think it's time that we went to a system where we ordered up the things we wanted to see instead of paying for channels. There's no reason we can't -- the technology is there -- it's just that nobody wants to have to change the way that they make money.
I was actually talking about this the other day with my husband. It goes beyond new shows. There was an old movie I wanted to watch a couple of weeks ago...I'm not subscribing to Netflix at the moment (would be a waste right now I'm not watching enough TV) and there isn't a good way to rent the movie. Video stores are a thing of the past, as far as I can tell. I found myself wondering why I couldn't just go someplace on the Internet and pay a dollar or two to watch this old movie. (I can buy it for $10 from amazon.com but I haven't decided I want to watch it that much.)
Anyway, I think for a lot of reasons we're ready for a revolution, we just need to find some executives with a little more foresight and a little less fear to bring it about.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Anyway, I think for a lot of reasons we're ready for a revolution, we just need to find some executives with a little more foresight and a little less fear to bring it about.
I suppose such a thing exists. I've never seen one. Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything you're talking about already exists, it's just a matter of fleshing it out. Between Hulu, Netflix and iTunes, it's not a matter of not having the digital "video stores," they just need more incentive to stock more shelves. It'll happen, just gradually. If you want it to happen faster, stop paying for the normal services.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pay $20 a month for a DSL Internet, and $17 a month for Netflix. That's it.
When you get cable, you pay almost $20 a month solely for the dedicated sports channels. Oh, heck no.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Everything you're talking about already exists, it's just a matter of fleshing it out. Between Hulu, Netflix and iTunes, it's not a matter of not having the digital "video stores," they just need more incentive to stock more shelves. It'll happen, just gradually. If you want it to happen faster, stop paying for the normal services.
Almost 3 years with no cable and not missing it a bit.
There's another problem, though, in that Internet is being bundled with other services. We would actually love to drop our home phone and go to just cell phones, but we have two choices for receiving Internet:
1. Purchase cable and get cable internet. 2. Purchase a home phone and get DSL.
The second is much cheaper so we go with it, but at the moment it is not within my power to get inernet free and clear, with no other type of service. At the moment, I think this is a huge problem with getting away from traditional TV mediums and one of the way those unenlightened executives are trying to maintain the status quo.
In fact, everyone is trying to bundle phone, internet, and TV together in one package -- either DSL, regular phone, and satellite or cable, cable internet, and internet phone.
Bundling is, I think, one of the biggest roadblocks to real capitalism.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Around here, getting cable internet alone without cable is less than $5/month extra. And it is much, much faster than local DSL at the same rate (though moderately more expensive than the cheapest DSL).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might check if you can get a cheaper price by going through a contractor. I know the 'official' cable rates are rather more than what we pay -- but the contractors are all authorized to offer cheaper deals.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have Dish at my home and I pay around $50 a month for it. I watch MAYBE 6 channels total. (NBC, Fox, ABC, Fox News, CNN, and sometimes VH1)
I only turn my TV on a few times a week to watch shows on those networks. Chuck, Heroes, Lost, Dollhouse, Fringe, and (I can't believe I am admitting this) The Entertainer: A Basement Affair)
If I had an internet enabled box hooked up to my Television that would enable me to just buy a complete season of a show, I would do it. They could release the new episodes weekly for all I care. Cut out all of the commercials, and let me keep the episodes I purchase. Let me transfer them to a hard drive so I can store them. They can charge me $50 per season per show and I would be willing to pay it. It would be like buying the DVD set when it came out, only I don't have to wait 6 months for it to be released.
The 5 shows I actually care about and actually watch each year would cost me $250, but that is still cheaper than the $600 I spend right now on a year of service.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine -- there isn't a show you mentioned that you can't get on hulu right now. And if you live anywhere near a major metropolitan area, you can still get free TV that includes ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, and a few others. I have those channels coming in through an antenna. No CNN or FOx News (shudder) but you can always get news on the internet. I definitely wouldn't pay $50 a month for news!
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things won't be like that forever. We're transitioning into a world where things we've gotten used to getting for free will not be free. Music isn't free unless you steal it. I don't think, as broadcast stations continue their decline, that the shows we're used to seeing for free will remain free. Likewise, a lot of news establishments won't be able to afford to show their content for free either. Someone has to pay for overseas bureaus and copy editors.
I was reading a story the other day in TIME about how one of the authors got into a discussion about the New York Times with his neighbor. The neighbor complained that she saw too many typos in the newspaper, so she was canceling her subscription. The author mentioned that the NYT had recently cut their copyediting staff, which likely resulted in the uptick in errors, but to a customer, that hardly matters. They simply want a good product, either for free, or for what they've always paid, and excuses don't much matter. But the more customers who drop it in favor of online content, the less money the NYT and other establishments have to put that content online.
Some think that in the 21st century, we don't need major news organizations who overseas bureaus. With the internet, everyone is a reporter, and the internet gives them a forum to voice their findings. But citizen-reporters are nothing like what we're used to, and will be a pale shadow of it. Yes, the situation in Iran last year was a pointed example of just how impressive citizen-reporters can be...but it also came with severe limitations. How much of what we heard was real? There's no way to know without independent confirmation. Furthermore, what does it all mean? News companies either contact or have on staff regional analysts to tell us what news means, or why it is important. That's invaluable, and without it, we're left to fend for ourselves, and understanding greatly diminishes, especially for the laymen.
This "we expect things for free" mentality that America has going on is going to get us into trouble in the long run. The music industry is trying to adapt to it, and in some interesting ways (ironically, they're regressing to how they did things decades ago). But television and news media are just starting to be squeezed by the same forces that have been hurting music for more than a decade.
quote:at the moment it is not within my power to get inernet free and clear, with no other type of service
Who's your DSL provider? While they are not required to advertise it, a handful of court decisions have mandated that DSL providers disclose whether or not dry-loop DSL is available in your area (i.e. if it is offered to businesses) and, if it is, must also make it available to homeowners at the same cost. When talking to a customer service rep, use the magic phrase, "I was checking to see if dry-loop DSL -- you know, DSL without phone service -- were available in my area." If it is, they have to tell you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but piracy affects radio too - more people listening to iTunes playlists means fewer listening to radio means ads sell for less means radio could conceivably become unsustanable.
A while ago I heard Pandora wasn't actually doing too well financially, although that was before they started having actual audio ads (non-audio ads being basically useless since you could hide the window). I don't know how well they're doing nowadays.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: True, but piracy affects radio too - more people listening to iTunes playlists means fewer listening to radio means ads sell for less means radio could conceivably become unsustanable.
A while ago I heard Pandora wasn't actually doing too well financially, although that was before they started having actual audio ads (non-audio ads being basically useless since you could hide the window). I don't know how well they're doing nowadays.
I read a fluff piece on Pandora in USA Today a week or two ago that indicated they are poised for some significant growth (and are past the worst of their copyright-related woes). But it didn't amount to any serious analysis.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a long time I've wondered why cable providers kept us from just picking and choosing what stations we wanted to watch, a la carte. I only watch maybe a dozen stations, and on a regular basis, that drops down to more like five stations. Yet I have to pay for dozens. Near as I can tell, that argument problem stems from the fact that if I wasn't helping to subsidize the less watched stations, they simply wouldn't have enough subscribers to stay in business, so we all pay for everything and just watch what we want.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This "we expect things for free" mentality that America has going on is going to get us into trouble in the long run. The music industry is trying to adapt to it, and in some interesting ways (ironically, they're regressing to how they did things decades ago). But television and news media are just starting to be squeezed by the same forces that have been hurting music for more than a decade.
I don't mind paying for things. I DO mind paying for things and then being shown advertisements. Either it's free to me and you charge companies to advertise for them or I pay for the content without interruption. This is my #1 complaint about cable, actually -- more than bundling and more than the outrageous costs, more than the fact that there isn't a ton I absolutely have to watch (I'm sure I would come up with a few things if I had it around) -- I don't want to pay for the privilege of watching advertisements. I'm getting annoyed by this at the movie theatre as well, for the record.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Some thing that in the 21st century, we don't need major news organizations who overseas bureaus.
Personally, I think that we do. I think that there is a very distinct difference in the quality of reporting between news organizations that have full-time overseas corespondents in an area and news organizations that fly in reporters just for special events (or even worse, reporters that never leave their desks and seem to interpret news second-hand through a local lens).
The pattern of news that is covered (and how) is also different between foreign correspondents and local bloggers. I think the two are complementary rather than replacements for each other.
If it is the case that America cannot find a way to operate foreign correspondents then that will be a major loss (especially for Americans).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "major news organizations" and "bureaus" are both loaded terms. For instance, for most of the world we don't have bureaus (and haven't had); we've had one journalist with a selection of stringers. The large news organizations often manage to create the illusion of substantial presences with substantial local familiarity, but they hardly ever have it in all but the most news-heavy places (and often not in those).
Effective international journalism can definitely still be profitable, though. Take a look at the Financial Times.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is largely true, which is why I unconsciously substituted correspondents for "major" and "bureau." I still think they're an important part of the picture though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
