4 ms·

20/month is 240$ - for 240$ I can buy a season pass (40$) to 6 individual shows. Unless i want to watch more than 6 of AMCs shows concurrently, its much more e

20/month is 240$ - for 240$ I can buy a season pass (40$) to 6 individual shows. Unless i want to watch more than 6 of AMCs shows concurrently, its much more expensive to pay 20$/ month. Even including shows that are over, I cant think of 6 successful shows on any single cable network. (walking dead, mad men, breaking bad, better call saul?, talking dead?, ??) On top of this, pricing has already been set and normalized in this market. Netflix is 7.99 amazon prime is around 8$ hulu is around 9 for ad free hbogo is 14.99 and is seen as premium in the marketplace I cant see any network pricing themselves above HBO and being successful.

mapt 11y ago
You have succeeded in completely missing the point, by fixating on an arbitrary number while missing the simple principle that the contrived example is meant to illustrate. If the service remains the same, the total that consumers pay will necessarily have to remain about the same. Instead of getting the freedom to change channels, they'll be stuck with the limited selection they have subscribed to. The bundling business model is a natural best fit for the technology that permits channels to be streamed simultaneously over the same lines; Anything else is a waste for the consumer and for the company. You guys are chasing illusory discounts: "If I just had to pay $5 to ESPN and I could drop everythng I don't watch..." cannot mathematically happen, because ESPN has to crank up their prices or end most of their production to survive as soon as their customer base drops by 90% due to the end of bundling.
- unprepare 11y ago
  You have succeeded in completely missing the point. It doesnt matter what ESPNs current revenue is, and it doesnt matter how many subscribers the lose when the shift towards a la carte. The fact is that the pricing for sports content has already happened; if ESPN wanted to weigh in on how much sports should cost, they should have gotten to market before the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. ESPN can launch at whatever price they want, but if that price exceeds the price of the official league packages that i intend to watch, there is absolutely 0 chance that i subscribe to ESPN You're chasing illusory revenues, "If I just set the price at X$, we could drop everyone who doesnt watch" cannot mathematically happen, because NFL et al would have to crank down their prices for ESPN to remain competitive. >or end most of their production to survive DING DING DING - this is exactly what will happen when espn finds out people dont value their more recent tabloid/drama centered content An actual example: I currently pay $150/year for NFL gamepass. This allows me to watch every single NFL game in HD live, including pre and post season games. 150/year is 12.50/month. IF ESPN released a service costing 13/month, i wouldn't buy it. What value does ESPN add to my existing NFL gamepass package? Do they think i would pay 13/month purely for sportscenter? purely for their terrible discussions of the latest drama in the sports world? Maybe if they offered some kind of sports news and debate like they did a decade or so ago. This is ESPN's competition. They have to compete with existing services that already fill the need for watching sports. I imagine ESPNs current broadcast contracts do not specifically allow them to move to a la carte structure, nor do i imagine it allows them to begin any kind of streaming service. I very much doubt the leagues are going to be very kind when renegotiating those contracts now that they all have their own streaming services.

mapt 11y ago

You have succeeded in completely missing the point, by fixating on an arbitrary number while missing the simple principle that the contrived example is meant to illustrate. If the service remains the same, the total that consumers pay will necessarily have to remain about the same. Instead of getting the freedom to change channels, they'll be stuck with the limited selection they have subscribed to. The bundling business model is a natural best fit for the technology that permits channels to be streamed simultaneously over the same lines; Anything else is a waste for the consumer and for the company. You guys are chasing illusory discounts: "If I just had to pay $5 to ESPN and I could drop everythng I don't watch..." cannot mathematically happen, because ESPN has to crank up their prices or end most of their production to survive as soon as their customer base drops by 90% due to the end of bundling.

unprepare 11y ago
You have succeeded in completely missing the point. It doesnt matter what ESPNs current revenue is, and it doesnt matter how many subscribers the lose when the shift towards a la carte. The fact is that the pricing for sports content has already happened; if ESPN wanted to weigh in on how much sports should cost, they should have gotten to market before the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. ESPN can launch at whatever price they want, but if that price exceeds the price of the official league packages that i intend to watch, there is absolutely 0 chance that i subscribe to ESPN You're chasing illusory revenues, "If I just set the price at X$, we could drop everyone who doesnt watch" cannot mathematically happen, because NFL et al would have to crank down their prices for ESPN to remain competitive. >or end most of their production to survive DING DING DING - this is exactly what will happen when espn finds out people dont value their more recent tabloid/drama centered content An actual example: I currently pay $150/year for NFL gamepass. This allows me to watch every single NFL game in HD live, including pre and post season games. 150/year is 12.50/month. IF ESPN released a service costing 13/month, i wouldn't buy it. What value does ESPN add to my existing NFL gamepass package? Do they think i would pay 13/month purely for sportscenter? purely for their terrible discussions of the latest drama in the sports world? Maybe if they offered some kind of sports news and debate like they did a decade or so ago. This is ESPN's competition. They have to compete with existing services that already fill the need for watching sports. I imagine ESPNs current broadcast contracts do not specifically allow them to move to a la carte structure, nor do i imagine it allows them to begin any kind of streaming service. I very much doubt the leagues are going to be very kind when renegotiating those contracts now that they all have their own streaming services.