TAZMINATOR Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Lets face it TV is a dying medium with more and more people cutting cable these networks are loosing revenue as it its. If the networks want to cut back and run reruns and reality shows, customers will not subscribe to them and they will die. Take channels like TNT, USA, TBS, Discovery; they are pretty much available on all cable providers in the US with about what 60 million customers (and decreasing) what is an expectable amount to charge for these channels? I understand the premium channels will cost more. I have no problem going from 200+ channels to 10-40. The good old days when cable boxes had 3 rows of 13 channels to choose from :) The entertainment industry needs to change drastically when it comes to cost. IMHO actors should not be paid the amount of money they get today. Reduce their salary in turn reduces the cost of the series to an extent. For movies, the actors/directors/writers should get paid in a percentage of the movie's total gross (ticket, DVD/BluRay, OD and broadcasts). Currently TV cannot sustain its current model much longer. Heheh.. I remember we had that box. And a few years later, we had a black box with round switch in center with numbers on it. If you are not sure what I am talking about, watch the movie, BTTF and you will see black box in Marty McFly's house (during the time that they were talking about wrecked car/blindspot). You will see the box behind Marty.. you can't miss it. I can't find the photo of the black box on the internet that I was talking about. But I remember well about black box in the movie because we had one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 customers would be very happy with an 'a la carte' system. Just pay for the channels you want to watch. No one's watching 90% of the cable channels anyway, so why force customers to pay for them? (rhetorical) yes, but that basically kills any sort of chance to startup a new channel, innovation as well as competition between them. Small channels can have critically acclaimed shows, but they would probably never reach any major audience if it wasn't for them being part of a package. As far as splitting the sports off, that's fine, its different, but I will say that I question the 4% figure they put out there. also, I don't think neowin is exactly the most ideal place to hold this talk about sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomastmc Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Cable TV is dying... Cable TV companies have two choices, create an a la carte model with realistic pricing for channels, or die. All of the arguments against a la carte don't matter when you compare it to the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludeboy12 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 customers would be very happy with an 'a la carte' system. Just pay for the channels you want to watch. No one's watching 90% of the cable channels anyway, so why force customers to pay for them? (rhetorical) Exactly. Let us decide which ones we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper11 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I definitely want to see an a la cart system, but I don't think its compatible with the current structure of cable and satellite companies. The structure will simply collapse under the change. Now maybe this is just going to happen anyway, but I think the real future of a la cart is from companies not tied to the current structure. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are much more likely to drive a proper a la cart model. All of these companies, along with Apple, have tried to make deals with the 'AAA' content providers on cable, etc, but have been shut down because of insane pricing for one thing. So what some are doing instead is investing heavily in building original content, effectively building a tv network from scratch. MS is the latest to join that strategy with heavy investments in building studios and hiring veterans in the field of tv. My guess is that these companies want to show the big content providers that there is another way to do this and still make money. In MS' case, they can now go back to the content providers and show they have the infrastructure in place, with content on the way and it would be wise for them to play ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts