3 ms·
Sorry, double negative wasn't intentional. I don't think individual show subscriptions would give you a cheaper price -- I don't see any way that's the result.
by CJefferson 3y ago
Sorry, double negative wasn't intentional.
I don't think individual show subscriptions would give you a cheaper price -- I don't see any way that's the result.
If there are 10 shows that cost $100 each to make, and 100 customers all pay for all shows, then that $10 per subscription.
If the same 100 customers split into 10 groups, and each group wants one show, then everyone still has to pay $10 to get that show made.
The overheads of providing you 10 shows vs 1 show aren't really significant in the big picture, as far as I understand.
- ianbutler 3y agoAh I think I see what you're saying. The overall group dynamics work out such that to make the distribution economically viable I'd still wind up paying the same. Now that I'm thinking through your lens my way might even result in preventing anything other than what is defined by the majority as mainstream programming from being released. Largely because I doubt shows have anything close to an even distribution of watchers so certain genres would naturally be oversubscribed. I wonder if this is really pointing out to separating the business model for new content versus old content. I very rarely watch a new show, there's so much existing good media, in that case I'm not trying to pay for creation of the show, I'm just trying to pay to have the media available to me, so that's bandwidth, delivery and hosting of said content, versus the continued production of said content.