3 ms·

Of course it's sustainable. It's sustainable forever until there is some other option. TV and news paper and magazines never found an alternative. If someone ca

Of course it's sustainable. It's sustainable forever until there is some other option. TV and news paper and magazines never found an alternative. If someone can think of one, they'll get very wealthy I'm sure.

shanecleveland 11y ago
Right. Or sustainable until a new way of serving up content is found. Print couldn't adapt to online. Will there be an alternative to online as we know it now?
vitd 11y ago
TV found several better models. PBS asks the public directly to give them money, and they allow corporations to buy sponsorships which don't interrupt the content. HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. have subscribers who pay directly for the privilege of watching their shows. Netflix delivers ad-free content to your home either via postal mail or network for a fee. There are plenty of other models available to try out.
- shanecleveland 11y ago
  In many cases PBS does interrupt their content to solicit donations – but you do get a coffee mug and tote bag. Is it better, as you suggest? Maybe. An alternative, certainly. Don't see many others doing it. Akin to a "Donate" button on a website. How well does that work for most?
  - vitd 11y ago
    I've never seen them interrupt a show in progress. I've seen them do pledge drives where they preempt a show, but I haven't ever had something I was watching on PBS be interrupted, personally. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe they do it differently in the places I've lived?
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, in Germany, for example, no one pays for Pay-TV – Sky has less than a few thousand users. But what people are willing to pay for is additional value for programs they already know – 60€ a year to get HD instead of SD quality is worth it for many. (Also, we have the largest tax-financed TV industry worldwide, even larger than the BBC with over 120 channels, but it’s worth it)

shanecleveland 11y ago

Right. Or sustainable until a new way of serving up content is found. Print couldn't adapt to online. Will there be an alternative to online as we know it now?

vitd 11y ago

TV found several better models. PBS asks the public directly to give them money, and they allow corporations to buy sponsorships which don't interrupt the content. HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. have subscribers who pay directly for the privilege of watching their shows. Netflix delivers ad-free content to your home either via postal mail or network for a fee. There are plenty of other models available to try out.

shanecleveland 11y ago
In many cases PBS does interrupt their content to solicit donations – but you do get a coffee mug and tote bag. Is it better, as you suggest? Maybe. An alternative, certainly. Don't see many others doing it. Akin to a "Donate" button on a website. How well does that work for most?
- vitd 11y ago
  I've never seen them interrupt a show in progress. I've seen them do pledge drives where they preempt a show, but I haven't ever had something I was watching on PBS be interrupted, personally. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe they do it differently in the places I've lived?
kuschku 11y ago
Well, in Germany, for example, no one pays for Pay-TV – Sky has less than a few thousand users. But what people are willing to pay for is additional value for programs they already know – 60€ a year to get HD instead of SD quality is worth it for many. (Also, we have the largest tax-financed TV industry worldwide, even larger than the BBC with over 120 channels, but it’s worth it)