The fair price of entertainment

[Hadel]

I have determined for me it in the following way.
I currently pay about 15.00 for a month of subscription for TV (with some HDTV content). And I watch about 30 hours per month TV.
This comes down to 0.50 per hour for this kind of entertainment.

So I decided to "price" all the entertainment by this measure.
My reading speed is ~60 pocketbook pages per hour. So for me a e-book of 300 pages (pocketbook equivalent) should be 2.50. Additionally, I should be able to read it on any device I choose and be able to lend it to other people. (E.g. I have my personal i'net library where I store my books and if I "take" one to a device, nobody can take it until I check it back)
I'd agree to some volume adjustments. E.g. if the book is between 100-250 pages to cost 2.00 (compensate for the effort) and if it is 350+ pages to cost 3.00 (I get a discount for the volume)

I know this will look quite shoking for a publisher, but I don't care. If they take the effort to adjust to the new digital reality, they should be OK.

Same goes for the pricing of other forms of entertainment: 0.50 for a TV show of 45min, 0.75 to 1.00 for a movie. Plus those have to be in HD format, easily and quickly downloadable. Of course, no commercials at all!
If they have any commercials, they should be not more than 10% of the duration and the show/movie should be completely free.

{Edit}
For music: A single song 0.05, for a whole album 0.50.
{/Edit}

If the entertainment indistry takes a leap of faith and follows this pricing, I am sure they will get e lot more money and 99% of the piracy will disappear over night.
Of course they will not and of course I will use mostly the other methods of getting my entertainment... e.g. library books, talking with friends, writing stuff myself, reading free books/articles on the i'net, etc...

What is your fair entertainment pricing model?

[Marc Johnson]

I don't believe I could make an entertainment pricing model. It has more to do with the quality than quantity. I don't mind paying $60 for an excellent 8-10 hour game as opposed to $60 for a mediocre 60 hour one.

[Hadel]

Originally Posted by Marc Johnson

I don't believe I could make an entertainment pricing model. It has more to do with the quality than quantity. I don't mind paying $60 for an excellent 8-10 hour game as opposed to $60 for a mediocre 60 hour one.

I missed the gaming, but my model fits that as well. Take World of Warcraft. By all accounts this is an excellent game. The subscriuption is about 15.00 per month. I used to play it a lot more than 30h/month, but let's take that 30h is normal. :-)

So it comes down again to 0.50 per hour.

[Blue Tyson]

I could read your 300 page book in a bit over an hour though. So do I get to have them sold to me for sixty cents?

And the really slow people pay 20 bucks? Sound pretty good to me!

[gollu]

I think there's something really wrong with your model. You can't measure a whole-lot sale (like a cable TV) as a on demand entertainment (like books, cinema movies, games). You can't say something should be $2 when its cost of production was 5 dollars (per expected sales).
Nobody makes you buy things, but looking to get those prices is too high an expectation.

[Hadel]

Originally Posted by gollu

I think there's something really wrong with your model. You can't measure a whole-lot sale (like a cable TV) as a on demand entertainment (like books, cinema movies, games). You can't say something should be $2 when its cost of production was 5 dollars (per expected sales).
Nobody makes you buy things, but looking to get those prices is too high an expectation.

Well, actually I can - it is my model. What is yours?
I come from the point that there are many ways of entertainment and they all compete for my time and money. I cannot enjoy a movie 10 times more only because it is 10 times more expensive compared to a documentary on the TV, can I?

Plus as I am the customer and I am awlays right... or something. :-)

But if you want to go down the road of the pricing, I can make this argument:
You make a movie and after the cinema run you can either put it on DVD or you may skip the DVD and make it available for streaming for 1.00 a pop.
The people in the world that will be able to afford my pricing model are at least 1 bln (I conservatively take only the 75% of the populaiton of the developed economies).
If 1% of those choose to watch the movie 1 time (and if it is a really good movie you may have 5-10% or even more!) you can make a quick 10mln and almost all of it is pure profit. This is after the movie has payed back already several times in the teather runs.
The audience for the average TV shows only in USA is like 5mln ppl. That is 2.5 mln per episode - not bad at all for one country. Let me remind you - one can actually get the said TV show compeltely for free by recording it AND skipping all the commercials. So 2.5 mln is really good.

There is this other thing - the budgets for the movies are too high anyway. Why on Earth an actor should make 10s of mln for a single movie?! Is his work more valuable than a heart surgeon or the president of USA? Is it more difficult? I am sure it is not. So no need to blow millions for the actors, directors, etc.
If all people in the entertainment industry get more fair salaries, prices of their products can easily go down.
I know this may sound a bit socialistic, but that's not bad, as long as it is not too much.

[Hadel]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

I could read your 300 page book in a bit over an hour though. So do I get to have them sold to me for sixty cents?

And the really slow people pay 20 bucks? Sound pretty good to me!

Of course, you can ask to get it 0.60, but probably you will fail. Your model is very difficult to apply.
It is better to get some average number and go with it. If the average reading speed of the active adult polulation is 30p/h I'd comply and pay double what I calculated in my model.

[neilmarr]

You're not taking into account advertising, Hadel. That's what covers your 'cheap' TV entertainment. And you pay for it every time you pick up a product from a shop where part of the price is to pay for those expensive TV ads. TV isn't cheap when you consider such hidden costs. Also factor in the cost of the TV itself, the cost of cable or sat service, electricity and the imposition of content that is nothing less than intrusive. Neil

[Maggie Leung]

I'm not willing to spend a cent on TV. It would take someone paying me to watch it.

I decide book by book what I'll pay. If I buy food, I don't expect to pay the same regardless of quality, even if it takes the same amount of time to eat it, and even if it's just as filling. For me, books are enjoyment and brain food, not just entertainment.

[neilmarr]

If you have rejected TV, Maggie, but still eat. Some of what you pay for food (and most other things you need) is going toward the cost of advertising to keep your neighbours' TV shows apparently 'cheap'. Neil

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

If you have rejected TV, Maggie, but still eat. Some of what you pay for food (and most other things you need) is going toward the cost of advertising to keep your neighbours' TV shows apparently 'cheap'. Neil

Yes, I focus on what I can control, not what I can't.

[rhadin]

True, Neil, but that is also true of anything one buys. If I buy one of your books, whether I like it or not, part of the price is supporting the books I wouldn't/didn't buy.

Like Maggie, I never watch TV and I consider it a particular ripoff that I have to pay such an inflated price as I am paying for TV because of greed by outfits like Fox News and the sports channels. No one in my household ever watches any sporting event, yet we can't choose to reduce our cable bill by not receiving the sports channels. Eliminating them alone should reduce the bill by at least a third.

[jbcohen]

Actually hadel, I think that there is a lot of validity for your model. I would like to caution you on one thing, make sure you use the same scale for each form of entertainment. Makre sure that you use a per hour basis for each, or what ever basis that you want to use. I notice that you used a per hour basis then a did not note what basis you were using for the other forms.

[kcmay]

For music: A single song 0.05, for a whole album 0.50

This only takes into account your first listen. Do you only listen to songs/albums once?

Also, this model is entirely dependent on what the cable/dish company decides to charge. Next year, after a rate hike, your whole model would have to be recalculated. You don't take that time into consideration.

[Hadel]

Originally Posted by kcmay

This only takes into account your first listen. Do you only listen to songs/albums once?

Also, this model is entirely dependent on what the cable/dish company decides to charge. Next year, after a rate hike, your whole model would have to be recalculated. You don't take that time into consideration.

I know, the prices are ridiculously low. But in the current reality.
In my preferred reality these should be OK. Of course we can get them for 0.10 or 0.20 cent per song. Or we can have 0.05 for first 5 listens and then for free.

The point is that my model is working if the industries embrace the idea that if they make the content easily, cheaply and widely available in electronic format they will get a fair amount of money. One because people will use more content and second because there will be much wider audience.