6 ms·

Why don't the finances work? As an example: I'm paying for Netflix and Amazon prime. I'm not going to pay for more services because I don't value watching TV m

Why don't the finances work? As an example: I'm paying for Netflix and Amazon prime. I'm not going to pay for more services because I don't value watching TV more than that. We buy or rent a specific movie maybe once a quarter at most. So total expenditure on TV services is around $20/mo. Almost everyone I know is in a similar situation. Some swap one of those services for something else, many are sharing subscriptions with other households. So right now most people are paying a fairly fixed amount for access to a portion of TV and film. The total money flowing in seems to be enough to support the entire industry. If a service that cost $20/month for access to everything came out, I'd definitely switch. I imagine most of my friends would as well. Then the total money flowing into the industry would be the same, but everyone would have access to all the media.

dageshi 6y ago
It's not enough to support the entire industry, that's the point of the article. $20 a month has never been enough, bearing in mind it's effectively replacing (in north America) cable which used to cost much more than that and those channels used to run ads as well!
ghaff 6y ago
I suspect a lot of people buy or rent more than you and your friends. For example, many people have either a cable TV or online streaming subscription that's another $50-100/month. HBO would be another $15 or so. And so forth. There is an argument that, at some point, there are only so many hours in the day and a Spotify for video (i.e. most content for one monthly fee) makes sense but that's probably a $100-200/month fee in the US (assuming you could get most players to cooperate). YouTube TV alone is $65/month these days.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Are normal working people really willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for some TV? Nobody watches that much TV surely? And how many have that kind of spare cash? I feel like outside of the rich, $10-15 is about all you can reasonably ask people to afford for a pure luxury like this.
  - anoraca 6y ago
    lol "According to a Nielsen report, United States adults are watching five hours and four minutes of television per day on average (35.5 h/week, slightly more than 77 days per year)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption
    - detaro 6y ago
      I.e. a good chunk of people has the TV running in the background all the time. Another chunk is just watching whatever during the day. How much do you think those demographics value that financially?
      - jacobr1 6y ago
        My intuition is that the 90s provided a good high-water mark for pre-internet entertainment spend. The average price of a cable subscription which in 1995 was $22.35/month [1] (inflation adjusted to $38 [2]) So $40/month. I'd add to that whatever the average blockbuster price was $5 * 4-weeks (quick googling didn't give me a great answer, but I found 2.18 GPB for 1995, so probably $3-5 with conversion and inflation). That makes roughly $60/month for the average American at-home tv/movie spend in the 90s. I suspect that still is the rough tolerance. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cable-tv-prices-inflation-chart-2016-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/cable-tv-prices-inflation-ch... [2] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
        ghaff 6y ago
        I would guess that the distribution today is at least somewhat bimodal based on whether someone pays for a live TV package whether cable, satellite, or streaming. Any of those probably cost at least $60/month (in no small part because of sports). I expect that typical other streaming spend (Netflix, a la carte rentals, maybe a premium Print add-on or HBO, etc.) probably don't add up to more than $30-40 a month or so.
  - ghaff 6y ago

dageshi 6y ago

It's not enough to support the entire industry, that's the point of the article. $20 a month has never been enough, bearing in mind it's effectively replacing (in north America) cable which used to cost much more than that and those channels used to run ads as well!

ghaff 6y ago

I suspect a lot of people buy or rent more than you and your friends. For example, many people have either a cable TV or online streaming subscription that's another $50-100/month. HBO would be another $15 or so. And so forth. There is an argument that, at some point, there are only so many hours in the day and a Spotify for video (i.e. most content for one monthly fee) makes sense but that's probably a $100-200/month fee in the US (assuming you could get most players to cooperate). YouTube TV alone is $65/month these days.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Are normal working people really willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for some TV? Nobody watches that much TV surely? And how many have that kind of spare cash? I feel like outside of the rich, $10-15 is about all you can reasonably ask people to afford for a pure luxury like this.
- anoraca 6y ago
  lol "According to a Nielsen report, United States adults are watching five hours and four minutes of television per day on average (35.5 h/week, slightly more than 77 days per year)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption
  - detaro 6y ago
    I.e. a good chunk of people has the TV running in the background all the time. Another chunk is just watching whatever during the day. How much do you think those demographics value that financially?
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      My intuition is that the 90s provided a good high-water mark for pre-internet entertainment spend. The average price of a cable subscription which in 1995 was $22.35/month [1] (inflation adjusted to $38 [2]) So $40/month. I'd add to that whatever the average blockbuster price was $5 * 4-weeks (quick googling didn't give me a great answer, but I found 2.18 GPB for 1995, so probably $3-5 with conversion and inflation). That makes roughly $60/month for the average American at-home tv/movie spend in the 90s. I suspect that still is the rough tolerance. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cable-tv-prices-inflation-chart-2016-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/cable-tv-prices-inflation-ch... [2] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I would guess that the distribution today is at least somewhat bimodal based on whether someone pays for a live TV package whether cable, satellite, or streaming. Any of those probably cost at least $60/month (in no small part because of sports). I expect that typical other streaming spend (Netflix, a la carte rentals, maybe a premium Print add-on or HBO, etc.) probably don't add up to more than $30-40 a month or so.
- ghaff 6y ago