2 ms·
Generally I start from the point of view that gross mis-pricings where there are multiple buyers and sellers involved are pretty rare. So the various TV organiz
by harryh 13y ago
Generally I start from the point of view that gross mis-pricings where there are multiple buyers and sellers involved are pretty rare. So the various TV organizations are probably paying about as much for sports broadcasting rights as their customers are willing to pay for them. Maybe it's off a bit one way or the other but certainly not by a factor of 10 (as you claimed above).
That's basically what I think unless I'm presented with very strong evidence to the contrary.
- VikingCoder 13y agoRemember, cable is merely the carrier. I assert that $0 of what I pay my cable company should go to pay for programming (other than Pay-Per-View), considering that programming already has advertising. If I want to pay for Premium content (like HBO, Sports), then Cable could mediate that. But that's not the relationship we have today, at all.
- harryh 13y agoCable companies are certainly not just a carrier. They pay all kinds of money in order to put together a package of programming that is popular enough for them to attract a large subscriber base. They do this because that's how they think they can best run their business. You can assert all you want about how you think the cable company should spend it's money, but you don't get all that much of a say in the matter.
- VikingCoder 13y agoMe alone? Nope. People recognizing how awful cable is? You tell me: Time Warner bled 191,000 subscribers in one quarter. DirectTV lost 84,000. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/business/media/directv-and-time-warner-cable-lose-subscribers-but-revenues-rise.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/business/media/directv-and...