4 ms·

The science channel will be a lot more than $5/mo if all the sports fans aren't forced to subscribe to it just to get their ESPN. It sounds reasonable that ala

by curun1r 10y ago

The science channel will be a lot more than $5/mo if all the sports fans aren't forced to subscribe to it just to get their ESPN. It sounds reasonable that ala carte pricing should be cheaper because you shouldn't have to subsidize channels you don't watch, but people forget that others are also subsidizing the channels they watch. The reality is that channels are already roughly priced according to their popularity and most people won't save much, if any, money with ala carte pricing.

aninhumer 10y ago
Except the relative viewer numbers will be taken into account in their contracts with the cable companies. If a channel attracts fewer customers to the package, it will get less money in return for its inclusion, so nothing is really being "subsidised".
CaptSpify 10y ago
Then if it doesn't make a difference, why do it? It seems to me to just be a shitty way to move money around that doesn't make sense to the consumer. If nobody wants to buy a channel, let it die. Lets call a spade a spade: they do it because people don't have a choice and have to pay for it.
bane 10y ago
It's really the other way around. Sports channels can't pack 24 hours of interesting content and are rapidly dying. ESPN has been crying for years now that they're dying a slow pitiful death. Sports fans don't want access to all sports, don't even want access to their sports, they want access just to the specific games they want to watch or think are important. Sports commentary outside of games just isn't compelling enough TV for casual sports fans to really watch and most of it is variations on "this season team <x> will work harder and not let other teams beat them" with archetypes of rebuilding, can-they-hold-onto-the-magic, underdog-story-of-the-season mixed in. The rest of cable offerings is the only thing keeping these channels alive because nobody is really watching them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/07/dont-tell-scott-van-pelt-that-espn-is-dying/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/07...

by curun1r 10y ago

aninhumer 10y ago

Except the relative viewer numbers will be taken into account in their contracts with the cable companies. If a channel attracts fewer customers to the package, it will get less money in return for its inclusion, so nothing is really being "subsidised".

CaptSpify 10y ago

Then if it doesn't make a difference, why do it? It seems to me to just be a shitty way to move money around that doesn't make sense to the consumer. If nobody wants to buy a channel, let it die. Lets call a spade a spade: they do it because people don't have a choice and have to pay for it.

bane 10y ago

It's really the other way around. Sports channels can't pack 24 hours of interesting content and are rapidly dying. ESPN has been crying for years now that they're dying a slow pitiful death. Sports fans don't want access to all sports, don't even want access to their sports, they want access just to the specific games they want to watch or think are important. Sports commentary outside of games just isn't compelling enough TV for casual sports fans to really watch and most of it is variations on "this season team <x> will work harder and not let other teams beat them" with archetypes of rebuilding, can-they-hold-onto-the-magic, underdog-story-of-the-season mixed in. The rest of cable offerings is the only thing keeping these channels alive because nobody is really watching them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/07/dont-tell-scott-van-pelt-that-espn-is-dying/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/07...