3 ms·

Unpopular, but without cable subsidizing costs of various networks through packages, we wouldn't have tons of cable channels that grew up to be great, like AMC

Unpopular, but without cable subsidizing costs of various networks through packages, we wouldn't have tons of cable channels that grew up to be great, like AMC and FX. The one exception to this is the ESPN subsidy, which is insane. If ESPN could actually be opted out of cable bills would be fairly cheap.

rjvir 10y ago
Why is ESPN an exception? Their price is a reflection of how much people want it. ESPN (and sports as a whole) are a big driver of cable subscriptions, which helps all cable channels.
forrestthewoods 10y ago
Unpopular? That's simple fact! Here's a NYTimes article from 2012 titled "The 'Mad Men' Economic Miracle". http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/magazine/the-mad-men-economic-miracle.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/magazine/the-mad-men-econo... AMC was making $30 million per MONTH off 80 million subscribers despite Breaking Bad having less than 3 million viewers.
khedoros 10y ago
We opted out of the sports tv package on DirecTv. Their page says that it's a $13.99/month set of channels.
rconti 10y ago
Disagree. The big players are leeching money that COULD go to small players if we got to choose where our money went. And then the cable companies throw you a few 'small' channels so you feel like the little guy wins occasionally. Instead we have all those channels in a perpetual race to the bottom to attract just enough eyeballs to be worth "keeping on the payroll" of the bundle. The racing footage I used to be able to get on Speedvision (on the rare occasion where my local provider HAD Speedvision!) was worth far more to me than the $0.20 they got from my subscription. I for one, welcome our a-la-carte overlords, where my dollars go to the content I want.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I don't think it is so clear that putting your dollars where you want gets you more topical programming than putting up with opaque bundles. (Say there's $30 on average of revenue in the cable bundle with only $15 of it being desired spending on average. The channels get a lot more revenue with the opaque bundles, and they are still competing to some extent for the revenue.)

rjvir 10y ago

Why is ESPN an exception? Their price is a reflection of how much people want it. ESPN (and sports as a whole) are a big driver of cable subscriptions, which helps all cable channels.

forrestthewoods 10y ago

Unpopular? That's simple fact! Here's a NYTimes article from 2012 titled "The 'Mad Men' Economic Miracle". http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/magazine/the-mad-men-economic-miracle.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/magazine/the-mad-men-econo... AMC was making $30 million per MONTH off 80 million subscribers despite Breaking Bad having less than 3 million viewers.

khedoros 10y ago

We opted out of the sports tv package on DirecTv. Their page says that it's a $13.99/month set of channels.

rconti 10y ago

Disagree. The big players are leeching money that COULD go to small players if we got to choose where our money went. And then the cable companies throw you a few 'small' channels so you feel like the little guy wins occasionally. Instead we have all those channels in a perpetual race to the bottom to attract just enough eyeballs to be worth "keeping on the payroll" of the bundle. The racing footage I used to be able to get on Speedvision (on the rare occasion where my local provider HAD Speedvision!) was worth far more to me than the $0.20 they got from my subscription. I for one, welcome our a-la-carte overlords, where my dollars go to the content I want.

maxerickson 10y ago
I don't think it is so clear that putting your dollars where you want gets you more topical programming than putting up with opaque bundles. (Say there's $30 on average of revenue in the cable bundle with only $15 of it being desired spending on average. The channels get a lot more revenue with the opaque bundles, and they are still competing to some extent for the revenue.)