On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:16 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I find it odd that SiriusXM -- offering a bunch of channels for a flat >> fee -- results in a diverse channel lineup whereas the cable/satellite >> TV industry does the same thing with the exact opposite result. Yet >> cable TV prospers while satellite radio fails. >> >> http://www.tvornottv.net/2011/04/10/via-satellite/ >> > > I don't find this surprising. Perhaps one reason that you do is that you > keep referring to broadcast television/radio as "free" - but of course it is > not. The audience pays for the programing in the cost of goods and services > it buys, that advertise themselves on broadcast programs. That kind of > market-based model inevitably puts pressure towards homogenization, as each > channel is rewarded (and may only be able to survive) by attracting as large > an audience as possible. > > Satellite radio is more diverse partly for the same reason that HBO > tolerates more diversity - the value of each channel is evaluated in terms > of its ability to increase unique subscribers to the larger package. A > relatively small audience can still be valuable if a large fraction of that > audience would be less likely to subscribe to the package without it. > > Thus, I think your argument actually supports a model that I think you are > against, which is a very tightly bundled package. If "cable TV" really was > parallel with satellite radio, viewers would pay one flate rate and get > access to every channel (I am not familiar enough with SiriusXM - perhaps > they do have some premium levels that cost extra). If this were the case - > if every viewer had to pay, say, $80/month for cable, which gave them access > to hundreds of channels, then we would see the kind of narrow-casting that > was originally promised us. > > Another model of course would be for cable television to be subsidized by > the taxpayers, not advertisers or subscribers. But then of course partisans > of various stripes would attempt to censor the content, so I guess that > won't work either. > > And don't forget that SiriusXM owns most of the channels it broadcasts, > partners with providers for several others and really only pays for a few of > the channels outright (like Stern and the sports packages). So they have the > ability to keep things on track, whereas with cable networks, the tendency > is for niche channels to drift off their original stated raison d'etre and > go more general interest so they become more attractive to advertising > dollars. > > > > > > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en >
-- +++++++++++++++ Joe Coughlin http://www.twitter.com/inturnaround -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
