3 ms·

"It's a simple, mathematical fact that the current people paying for films and television are paying much, much more than your hypothetical $30/month." "New co

"It's a simple, mathematical fact that the current people paying for films and television are paying much, much more than your hypothetical $30/month." "New content is simply not available at the present quality level for the price you are offering." I'm not sure either of these statements hold up. People may be spending more than $30 a month on movie-related entertainment, but a large portion of those dollars don't end up in the pockets of the content creators. It's like saying that a $10 CD can't be less profitable for a musician than a $1 MP3. A large percentage of the dollars that consumers currently spend on entertainment go to the channel rather than the creator. I'm sure if Louis CK had distributed his recent video via traditional channels, the total dollar volume of the purchases might have been 10x higher between pay cable, DVDs and downloads. But he, as the content creator, might have made less money (and certainly would have had less control.) As for downwards price pressure, the average price of a movie ticket has been rising for years while studios watch ticket volumes decline. Where's the price pressure there?

mgkimsal 15y ago
Furthermore, while many people are paying high cable/satellite bills, many other people aren't - they're already priced out of that market. And many other people are dropping out of that too, whether for 'pirated material' or just other media/entertainment. A smaller monthly fee with greater access to more content on demand - even if there is some DRM attached to it - would bring people back. Watching BBC programs, for example - or maybe 70s NBC dramas - there's huge vast collection of back catalog stuff that simply isn't doing anyone much good sitting in vaults. If I knew I had access to all of that stuff for a flat rate, it's be much less worth it to hit up pirate bay. Yeah, we may not really be talking one flat rate, but I'd love to pay BBC $10/month to have access to all their back catalog. And NBC. And CBS. And ITV. And ABC. Wow - gosh, I might just be willing to pay $50/month for all that stuff. But yeah, that'd mean they'd have some work to do - one time work - to make continued ongoing revenue streams. Without even having to put up ads!

mgkimsal 15y ago

Furthermore, while many people are paying high cable/satellite bills, many other people aren't - they're already priced out of that market. And many other people are dropping out of that too, whether for 'pirated material' or just other media/entertainment. A smaller monthly fee with greater access to more content on demand - even if there is some DRM attached to it - would bring people back. Watching BBC programs, for example - or maybe 70s NBC dramas - there's huge vast collection of back catalog stuff that simply isn't doing anyone much good sitting in vaults. If I knew I had access to all of that stuff for a flat rate, it's be much less worth it to hit up pirate bay. Yeah, we may not really be talking one flat rate, but I'd love to pay BBC $10/month to have access to all their back catalog. And NBC. And CBS. And ITV. And ABC. Wow - gosh, I might just be willing to pay $50/month for all that stuff. But yeah, that'd mean they'd have some work to do - one time work - to make continued ongoing revenue streams. Without even having to put up ads!