The fair price of entertainment

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The BBC has an annual budget of about £4.6bn (about US$7.4bn) - that would be one heck of a private membership organisation! About £3.4bn of that comes from the tax payer; the other £1.2bn from the BBC's commercial businesses (eg selling programmes to overseas broadcasters).

Hmmm... Let's see if we can estimate the size of public broadcasting in the US...

The nearest equivalent to the BBC here in the US is a combination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) (directly supported by Uncle Sam, i.e. our tax $$), PLUS the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) supported mostly by viewer donations funneled through individual stations along with a minority of foundation and industrial support along with rather modest support from CPB (so it's mostly a private membership organization) PLUS National Public Radio (NPR) which is just like PBS but for radio instead of television, PLUS all the local PBS TV affiliates (which are all private membership organizations) PLUS all the local NPR radio affiliates (ditto private membership organizations).

A quick check of budgets shows (at the national level):

• CPB: $0.5bn from Federal Gov't (source tax revenues plus debt)
• PBS: $0.58bn, of which 0.05bn comes from taxes (that is, from the CPB!), remainder is memberships and donations of various sorts.
• NPR: $0.15bn, of which ~16% comes from various levels of government (mostly the CPB above), remainder from "private membership organization" (e.g. donations from individuals, businesses, foundations, etc.)

The various individual stations are, in aggregate, much larger than the umbrella organizations. But there're too many of them for me to do a similar rundown. Some quick math on various statements made in the financial data for PBS and NPR suggests that the NPR member stations, in aggregate, have a total budget of about $1bn per year (of which 16% came from the CPB). The PBS stations are much larger than the radio stations on average, and get an average of about 10% of their revenue from various levels of government. A similar estimation says they have a total budget of about $3bn to $5bn per year, of which about 10% comes from the CPB and other levels of government.

Note that my estimates for the budgets of the local affiliates are based on dividing up the CPB money as $0.15bn to NPR affiliates, $0.30bn to PBS affiliates, and the remaining $0.05bn to PBS directly (only this last is known to be correct). I then applied the typical %age from government to (in inverse) to the CPB money to get the estimated aggregate budget for the local stations. This will be an underestimate to the extent that they get $$ from governmental sources other than the CPB.

Overall, that gives us a rough estimate that public broadcasting in the US is around a $5bn to $7bn per year enterprise, with $0.5bn to $0.75bn (16% or less!) coming from various levels of government, and the remainder raised through typical charitable means (e.g. "private membership organization").

So having a $7bn per year enterprise that is based mostly on private memberships is large-ish, but entirely feasible. That's how it works here in the US on an ongoing basis.

Xenophon

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Uh huh. Let me guess, any country that has a flawed state media won't qualify as a "working democracy," right?

I really see no particular reason to exclude states on this basis, especially since the largest nation (China) is not a democracy and almost certainly has at least some propagandist state media.

Well if the goal is to be propaganda then it has not degenerated to propaganda which was you point. So therefore such countries does not work as an example.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

(And anyone who thinks it's making me stupid can... well, go read a Harlequin romance and pat themselves on the back for being ever so superior.)

I notice that you rail against snobbery, then turn around and snub Harlequin readers, lol. They're not my thing, but I'm all for people reading whatever they like. If TV's your thing, more power to you. I don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment, as long as they're not into harming animals and such.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad...mm_pap_title_0

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

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.

Riiiiiight. Reading Twilight and trying to keep up with The Sopranos... gee, which one exercises my brain more?

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by queentess

Riiiiiight. Reading Twilight and trying to keep up with The Sopranos... gee, which one exercises my brain more?

No idea. Haven't partaken of either.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

The flatlining I mentioned comes from brainwave studies. I wasn't posing it as an opinion. You are free to disagree with the science, of course. For me, it's about not wanting to get stupider. I already wish I were smarter, lol. I don't think that qualifies as snobbery.

Please provide a link to a legitimate study.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by queentess

Please provide a link to a legitimate study.

Please google. As I mentioned a few posts ago, I read this stuff a long time ago and prefer not to debate it, because I don't care to convince people.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Please google. As I mentioned a few posts ago, I read this stuff a long time ago and prefer not to debate it, because I don't care to convince people.

I read a study about 10 years ago in my psych physiology class that said it's the content/quality, not the medium, that affects us most. Today's tv shows are a far cry from what they were in in the 1960s. I've tried to watch Bonanza, The Waltons, etc. (I'm picking random old shows. I have no idea when these aired.) They ARE mind-numbing shows.

Of course, by the assumption that "LCD makes us stupid", this also means that highly engaging video games also make us dumb. Does playing chess online versus playing chess in person make me stupider? No, because it's about my thought process and the way I'm able to reason through the situation and create strategies.

Perhaps some people feel that reading is superior as hold-over from the days when the upper class were the only ones who could afford books? Reading an unengaging book is no different from watching an unengaging tv show. But hey, let's spout research that was performed in 1969 and never duplicated.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by queentess

Of course, by the assumption that "LCD makes us stupid", this also means that highly engaging video games also make us dumb. Does playing chess online versus playing chess in person make me stupider? No, because it's about my thought process and the way I'm able to reason through the situation and create strategies.

Perhaps some people feel that reading is superior as hold-over from the days when the upper class were the only ones who could afford books? Reading an unengaging book is no different from watching an unengaging tv show. But hey, let's spout research that was performed in 1969 and never duplicated.

Shrug. I suggest that people read up if they like, then make up their own minds. I don't pretend to have anything more than an opinion about science that I can't verify on my own. That's why I don't try to convince people. I also mentioned several posts ago that the research is dated and that I'd like to see an update. But huff away if you like. I'm here for entertainment.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I notice that you rail against snobbery, then turn around and snub Harlequin readers, lol.

I'd only snub a Harlequin reader if they claimed that reading a Harlequin made you smarter, while watching an hour of Frontline, Mad Men or Dexter made you dumber. Otherwise, more power to the bodice rippers and their fans.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

I'd only snub a Harlequin reader if they claimed that reading a Harlequin made you smarter, while watching an hour of Frontline, Mad Men or Dexter made you dumber. Otherwise, more power to the bodice rippers and their fans.

Lol. So it's OK to be a snob as long as you think it's for the "right" reason. I'm guessing that snobs in general think they have a good reason for their snobbery. I'm snobbish about hypocrites, then I catch myself slipping in that direction. Oy.

[simonroyle]

Originally Posted by Hadel

But what about the 3 bln people that live in Asia? Does anyone in his right mind expect them to buy legitimate copies of Windows or pay for legal DVD's?!

Yes. I DO live in Asia. People in Singapore enjoy a higher standard of living (average) than those in USA. Please be a little more careful with your generalizations. The argument that poverty excuses theft is a poor one. If you want to live in a Country where the State provides you with all your needs I believe there are still a few places left. Of course you need to bear in mind that the State also determines what you need.

Not sure what the TV is like in North Korea, or Cuba, and not sure if that's a communal TV that you'd be watching on.

Your pricing model is your business, and mine is mine. If I choose to sell my book at a price that many cannot afford or I choose to give it away, that is MY choice; and I will defend that right with all that I am.

[greencat]

I like the thought behind the pricing model for entertainment the OP has developed but missing from the equation is demand and access.

I might like to see a ballgame or visit the theatre for just a few dollars but it's not going to happen because there's less access and more demand.

Digital distribution (access) is trending towards free on a per unit basis but if the demand is there then publishers are going to try to maximise profits through pricing. If they are a public company - they actually have a obligation to do so for their shareholders.

All that said - there's no reason why you ever need to pay for entertainment again. A public domain book in digital format costs nothing. Plenty of music also available for free online. Ditto film. All perfectly legal and a lifetime's worth of viewing, reading and listening pleasure awaits you for nothing.

Personally I reckon once you have convinced people that your entertainment product is worth paying anything for (even just their time) - that's the hardest part over with. After that it's just negotiation between the seller and the buyer. If there's a difference in opinion about the value - well either the seller or the buyer is in for a rude awakening unless they can reach a compromise.

Entertainment isn't just a way of passing the time and few people focus on just the utility value of things. If they did everyone would carry their stuff in free supermarket bags and never buy a Gucci one.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Lol. So it's OK to be a snob as long as you think it's for the "right" reason.

Wow, missing the point entirely. Never mind.