3 ms·
Lots of people pay $50-$100/month for cable/satellite. I don't.. and I don't understand the value, and you might not either, but a huge amount of the population
by dhbanes 15y ago
Lots of people pay $50-$100/month for cable/satellite. I don't.. and I don't understand the value, and you might not either, but a huge amount of the population does.
- endersshadow 15y agoLive events. That's the value of that subscription. It's why ESPN can charge nearly 4x what other channels charge providers. Almost the entirety of my value from television I derive is from watching sports. If I can watch 20 hockey games in a month for the price of actually going to one live, then that's worth it to me. If I can watch my alma mater play some hockey, then that's worth the substitution of buying an expensive plane ticket, getting a hotel, and watching them play (I live about 2000 miles from the good ol' alma mater). I think for this reason, you'll never see that expense go away and TV will remain fairly ubiquitous.
- snprbob86 15y agoIt's not really that simple when you account for the "triple play" style packages. People are getting their internet, phone, and TV all together for around $100/month. People don't really understand what portion of their bill goes to each of those services, but they view all three of them as critical (with phone service rapidly becoming provided by cell phones). There is pretty well understood psychological effects of bundle pricing. When you break out just movies, $10/mo might be what people actually want to pay. I suspect the actual right price point for the mass populous is somewhere > $10 and < $50... but Netflix has to live in a world where people already have TV, thanks to aggressive bundle pushing strategies from cable companies. At $10/mo, Netflix is priced the same as Stars & friends: like "channel packs".
- IamfP 15y agoI pay $160/mo on satellite, plus sports packages. And half the time, we just watch the $10/mo Netflix instead.