The fair price of entertainment

[Andrew H.]

If you really stuck to these prices, all you will be doing is watching TV and reading library books.

And while it makes some sense to consider how much you are spending for your entertainment budget, using the figures from an advertising supported medium to figure out how much is "fair" for a non-advertising supported medium won't work.

TV is cheap because millions of people watch the advertisements. OTA TV with some HD content in the US is free, for that matter. Most books that are considered "successful" sell a few tens of thousands of copies. With no advertising to support them, they are going to have to charge more than 50c/hr, which isn't possible at your pricing levels unless the author works for free - and maybe not even then.

And your music prices are just stupidly low - there is no entertainment for you if no one gets paid.

The idea that making prices infinitely low means that an infinity of people will buy the product seems to be the root of your delusion. But it's not true - as you mentioned, a successful TV show in the US might have 2.5 million viewers. Yet despite the fact that this shows is free, more than 99% of the US population somehow managed to avoid watching it.

At some point, of course, people are price sensitive, and there is usually an equilibrium point (sometimes several) at which the supply/demand curve will be most efficient. But, as I mentioned above, demand isn't infinite - if Ken Follett dropped the ebook price on "Fall of Giants" to $2/book, he wouldn't get 10x more readers since the number of people interested in reading the book at all (even if it were free) is limited.

Again, you can choose how you want to spend your money. But it's ludicrous to assume infinite demand or to ignore production costs such as, oh, paying the author.

[edbro]

I can watch a beautiful sunset for free. It lasts about 1/2 hour. So, let me calculate this; all my ebooks should be FREE!

If you want free books, go to the library. If you want to own the book, or the license to it, pay money for it. Just like I can watch TV over the air for free but if I want to own the DVD of a series, I must buy it.

[HamsterRage]

TV is on the fast track for a rude awakening in the near future. How many regular TV watchers now have PVR's (DVR's in the States, Tivo by brand name)? How many of those people actually watch commercials?

So what happens when a critical mass of viewers have PVR's and simply skip over the commercials, like I do? What advertisers are going to pay to place ads on TV then? Who pays to make the programming then?

So is broadcast TV dead?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

So what happens when a critical mass of viewers have PVR's and simply skip over the commercials, like I do? What advertisers are going to pay to place ads on TV then? Who pays to make the programming then?

The tax payer? Consider the BBC, for example; that's how they are funded.

[whitearrow]

I don't have a "model" for entertainment. I look at the cost of something, and either it's a sufficient value for me, and I buy it, or it's not, and I don't. A one-size fits all model doesn't work for me because not everything is equal.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And you already watch too much TV.

You know what? You have no more business saying this than someone would have telling you that you read too much.

I love books and I love filmed entertainment like movies and TV. I'm tired of book lovers telling me that TV is inherently bad, as if there weren't thousands upon thousands of books out there that are the book equivalent of the worst TV you could name.

No one form of entertainment is inherently superior to another. It's the quality that matters, and if someone goes looking, there is more high quality TV around today than ever before, both fiction and documentary, thanks to cable and satellite.

30 hours a month, which is what the OP says he watches, is an hour a day... hardly "too much" by even the most snobbish standards.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

You know what? You have no more business saying this than someone would have telling you that you read too much.

Yeah, that was snarky; I removed it.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Yeah, that was snarky; I removed it.

Thanks for saying that.

[JackNolte]

Entertainment is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I'll pay more for Stephen King than I'll pay for Joe Schmoe with his first novel out -- just the way it works. If Joe proves his worth, then maybe people will be willing to pay $10 for his books too. It's all supply and demand.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Hadel

I have determined for me it in the following way....

I have no problem with saying "I will only pay X for my content."

That said:

Originally Posted by Hadel

...for me a e-book of 300 pages (pocketbook equivalent) should be 2.50. 0.50 for a TV show of 45min, 0.75 to 1.00 for a movie. For music: A single song 0.05, for a whole album 0.50. Plus those have to be in HD format, easily and quickly downloadable. Of course, no commercials at all!

So what you're saying is that you are a skinflint, a miser, a Scrooge, a tightwad, stop me somewhere along the line.

There is almost no way anyone will go with this pricing plan. No matter how much sales would go up, authors would go through the roof if they were told their royalties will drop from $2.50 a book to 25¢, especially since it's unlikely sales will increase enough to compensate everyone for the lost revenues.

Seriously, all you're doing is pricing yourself out of most of the market, especially if you're barely willing to pay anything and refuse to deal with commercials. If you want free stuff, in almost every case it's getting subsidized by an advertiser.

There is quite a bit of cheap or free stuff out there. However, your options will be limited to the good graces of public domain and promotional offerings.

Another way to put it is: Your business is barely worth having. So why should any content creator decimate their revenues to capture it...?

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

TV is on the fast track for a rude awakening in the near future. How many regular TV watchers now have PVR's (DVR's in the States, Tivo by brand name)? How many of those people actually watch commercials?

So what happens when a critical mass of viewers have PVR's and simply skip over the commercials, like I do? What advertisers are going to pay to place ads on TV then? Who pays to make the programming then?

So is broadcast TV dead?

If it fails to make programs people want to watch, and pay of their own will, the faster it dies, the better. As long as no one coerces people to pay, why would this be a problem?

Originally Posted by HarryT

The tax payer? Consider the BBC, for example; that's how they are funded.

Yes, unfortunately, more and more "artists" decide to become parasites in this way. We have state funding "culture" here, and people have to pay in taxes, despite the fact that no one wants to watch what such people want to show.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

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

Well said, Maggie!

I remember thirty years ago when many record albums here in the US had a sticker that read "Music - Your Best Entertainment Value". I thought that was true, considering the number of hours of enjoyment I got from most of my albums compared to their cost.

As far as eBooks go, I have stated in the past that I would be willing to see relevant advertisements at the beginning and the end of the book in exchange for a very low price.

One problem I have with cable TV (to which I do not subscribe) is that they ask for top dollar to watch programs with advertisements. There is no difference between a ballgame shown on ABC and one shown on ESPN except that you have paid to watch the ESPN game.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

You know what? *You have no more business saying this than someone would have telling you that you read too much.

I love books and I love filmed entertainment like movies and TV. *I'm tired of book lovers telling me that TV is inherently bad, as if there weren't thousands upon thousands of books out there that are the book equivalent of the worst TV you could name.

No one form of entertainment is inherently superior to another. *It's the quality that matters, and if someone goes looking, there is more high quality TV around today than ever before, both fiction and documentary, thanks to cable and satellite.

30 hours a month, which is what the OP says he watches, is an hour a day... hardly "too much" by even the most snobbish standards.

It's up to each individual how to spend time, of course. No matter the content of TV, though, your brain basically flatlines when watching it. (You can find studies online.) So I figure, even if I were to read crappy books, I'd still be better off than watching TV. I choose not to read crappy books, so reading is an even better choice for me.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by 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)

It is an intesting model for you to determine the value of your options to you, or your demand pricing. I think you are not taking some factors into your
model though. You usually pay more for pull options then push options for example. You have to check the tv schedules and sit down and watch it as it is pushed to you, or pay more for a dvr or on demand options. You have more choice as to the what and when with the ebooks. That has value. On the other hand you can't watch subscription tv on any device you choice, you often have to rent additional convertor boxes just to watch it on other tvs in your house. You don't usually get any options to stream it to your computer, pda or cell. You can't lend it out. So why if this is your bases for the pricing model would you say an ebook should have this when priced on this model?

Now I do think that since you can't lend an ebook, your licence may just die with you for it, and it can be device and geo restricted the price of ebooks should be much less then printed books.

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.

Been giving some thought to this since the release of the Apple TV and looking at the Amazon VOD and reading some comments on the pricing models. I would pay 99 cents for a tv show, and $3-$4 for a movie, but I would not buy many a month, maybe $10-$20 as a budget.

For you model the equilvent seems to be the $9 a month netflix subscription, which I did get along with the roku box and am pretty happy with that for the money.

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

Seems your model would be more the paid pandora or last.fm options not the ala carte ownership again. I find the 99cent a song pricing ok here, maybe a little high. For an album I wanted would not blink at any prices under $5.

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?

I would not pay even the $15 for prescheduled tv service that you do. I would pay more for the ala carte options then you would. I don't value them as high as the current prices mostly are for the most part.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The tax payer? Consider the BBC, for example; that's how they are funded.

Why should people be forced to support through taxes tv shows that they won't directly. If people want it they will pay, if not what does it matter if it goes away? It would probably become more expensive then it is now. They would create tv lobbyist, tv bureaucrats, tv studies, and probably even tv police all funded through these taxes. Just another expense we would have no control over. Seems a pretty bad idea.