Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ssm06, Jan 2, 2013.
It isn't the party line. It's the simple reality of the situation.
It's the current reality of the situation.
This was funny... last night we watched Continuum on SyFy (slightly time-shifted ). Saw a reference to liber8.com. :lol:
Over $500 million revenue for SyFy
That article says in 2010 the highest rated show was... Ghost Hunters :eek2:
Boy, that one costs a fortune to make.
We love science fiction but the garbage they make is rarely watchable. Somebody is making truckloads of money.
Hey! Those ectomorphic discombobulators don't come cheap!
IF those numbers are right (big IF), $240 million divided by 96 million divided by 12 months is about 21 cents per subscriber. IF the numbers are correct.
The advertising is something totally different. Separate revenue stream, separate mechanics all together. Of course, what wasn't published in that article is their expenses.
All true...but the term "channel" now means a set of content made available by a distributor through a given access point. Hence, the IPTV sources on Roku are called "channels" even though they are non-linear, non-broadcast sources of content.
For most of this discussion, the word "channel" should be construed in the Roku sense.
Of course, Continuum costs quite a bit to make, as does many of the other programs on SyFy. Ghost Hunters costs more than you think as well...location shooting is expensive. It is cheaper than a traditional scripted show, no argument, but it is not cheap.
Of course it does...in terms of how the allocate money to R&D, where they focus their development, etc. Just like the fact that CBS is currently trouncing NBC in the ratings will drive NBC to try new content while discarding the old. What the consumer does not have much influence over is the terms under which Broadcomm and Qualcomm make their products available to manufacturers, just as viewers have little influence over how Viacom and Comcast sell the CBS and NBC content to DirecTV and other MCOs.
I'm not sure about that. Those are completely different models and have different costs and consumer appeal.
A la carte still means linear channels typically purchased one by one or as a like group (as in HBO being considered one channel for a la carte purchases).
Roku type channels are more provider than real channels and vary from all you can eat shows/movies or individual purchases. The Amazon "channel" has both via Prime and non-Prime channels (or non-Prime customers). Throw in season purchases as well.
No way does Joe Six Pack think of buying a season of Doctor Who on Amazon as "a la carte" and it is to Joe Six Pack we must examine any appeal of any model/product line.
Can we agree to keep models separate or the whole thing blurs into a muddy mess.
Yeah and contrary to popular belief by many anti sports people, it's the regular cable networks who are greedy with high cash flow margins and not sports networks like ESPN.
Looks like it's the non sports channels that are the greedy ones.
A la carte is just a perceived means to an end.
I haven't seen much change in the quantity or quality of content. I already pay for channels upgrading to HD with my $120/yr HD fee.
In a large mature industry like this one would expect increases to be around inflation.
Facts: Since 2009...
DirecTV has gone up 24%
inflation was about 7%
median household incomes gained about 1%
It is not so much the greed of ESPN et al, but the overall "greed" of sports in general. I think SR has mentioned several times the large contracts that the sports channels are giving to teams, leagues and conferences. Just look at the recent TW/Lakers/Dodgers deals.
And this is new? CBS has been way ahead of NBC for a long time I suspect. It sure is on my playlist.
NBC needs to try an entirely new strategy, not just new content. They fling stuff out there and then kill it before it ever has a chance.
Typical SyFy formula for "science fiction":
Take a futuristic science fiction story concept and place it in the dumpiest location you can find, make it really dark so you can't see the joke that it is, sprinkle in a minute or so of cgi each episode and call it good.
Lots of times it looks like it was made with a consumer camera and edited on a Mac in somebodies basement.
All that stuff may be expensive but that doesn't mean it should be.
Typical road or utility projects are expensive too. It cost money to have 4 supervisors standing around watching 1 worker.
As you cheapen the cost of production you also reduce the production value. I can tell a show that was written for network TV, superstation TV, cable, and web. They all have their look and feel, and as production quality drops, so does viewership, which in turn reduces the marketing value.
If those are linear functions, or if reducing the cost is faster than the rate of marketing value, all is good. New equipment can make that happen.
But writing, acting, directing, etc. often reduces the marketing value much faster than the rate for reducing the cost.
That wasn't my point. My point was the parallels between Broadcomm/Qualcomm competition and CBS/NBC competition. You have made the case that the TV industry has no competition, and I have been pointing out where it does. You have assumed that you are the network's customer in the same way Nokia is Qualcomm's. I was pointing out that Nokia is more comparable to DirecTV and you can influence a network's business dealings about as much as you can Qualcomm's.
FWIW - Continuum is made/produced in Canada where it has completed its 1st season. SyFy licensed it to show in the US. But your point on the quality of many shows airing on Syfy (my personal favorites Warehouse 13 and Farscape notwithstanding is valid. To the topic at hand...SyFy is available for streaming via PlayOn. Limited content is available via Roku.
Everyone in the ecosystem that creates and delivers a product deserves to make a good living. I would add that the statement applies to any industry anywhere.
What is wrong with the current system is that the consumer has very little feedback unlike just about any other product. Most things are tied up in knots. The only people that don't pay for SyFy are those that don't have TV service or are on the lowest tier package.
I am willing to pay more for better content. The lack of a free market prevents content creators from getting that money.
It's a stupid system.
And BTW, I've seen the cheapening/devaluation of labor. I used to do software engineering! Ask engineers about the many jobs that were shipped to India/China and the remaining jobs demanding 2 or 3 times the output for the same money.
Maybe that is the root of everything - increasingly unjustifiable redistribution of wealth.
But you can today. Buy all your choice of entertainment on DVD or Blu Ray or PPV.
And stop claiming there is a lack of free market. It is an unintelligent use of the term. A free market refers to a lack of GOVERNMENT restriction. While the market is regulated, when it comes to how content is provided, there is little government restriction other than who gets the airwave rights. The content itself is purely market driven.
You decry the lack of a free market in several posts then want more government regulation in others. You cannot have it both ways.
There are two parts to this. You presume you are the buyer of content. As Diana points out, it is the marketers that are the real buyers. So you're control is limited as a non buyer.
But... You still have lots of control by your choices of what you watch. If you don't watch shows, they get less money. That is market control.