Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
Of course they can. They are charging each cable operator either a per viewer fee regardless of whether that viewer ever watches their channel or a high subscriber fee in the case of HBO.
|
You realize you're agreeing with my point?
That there is *big* money to be made off new distribution models if only you actually *embrace* them: The cable networks created an entirely new business model (gasp!) to suit the new transmission medium.
Instead of relying on madison avenue advertising fees, as they had since the earliest days of radio, they embraced the idea of a subscription service they can market direct to consumers through the cableco retailer. If you're HBO or Showtime you don't care if an advertiser finds a show foul-mouthed or risque; you just care if the viewers tune in and if your subscriptions actually go up when a given show is running. (There is a reason their shows have been running the table at Emmy Time.)
And yes, their network *is* ala carte ($9 a month); it doesn't rely on cable operators taxing non-viewers. (For the record: ESPN would *love* to go ala carte, too. It is the cablecos--and the government--who insist on the bundle mode because they understand that two thirds of the cable channels woud vanish overnight in a purely ala carte business model.)
Major League Baseball also has a new business model that is raking in money hand over fist; their MLB.TV online venture lets you watch any baseball game in the country (live or after the fact) in your choice of home or visitor broadcast, for $24 a month of $120 for a whole year. Now that their service is available via XBOX I'm sorely tempted.
Instead of huddling down to protect their broadcast networks, the media giants have adapted and created narrow-focus channels for Science Fiction, History, Biography, Nature, Soap Operas, News and sports.
They'll never again have a 30 million-viewers-a-week show like THE COSBY SHOW,
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133182...der-to-come-by
but they can now offer people a broader variety of content that better fits their needs. In publishing terms, the "print run" for a bestseller is smaller but by producing more shows across more channels they actually get more viewers and more money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/bu...03ratings.html
The big media companies have evolved with the times instead of looking to protectt the old ways at all costs. In the chaos of technological disruption, they found opportunity.
And profits.