>> 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.
I don't dispute this. One of the things that has evolved in our capitalistic society is that we no longer have any comprehension of having made "enough" money. SciFi, CourtTV, and The Learning Channel each made money as niche channels, but they didn't make enough, so they became SyFy, Sleuth (now Cloo), and TLC (minus the learning). Even 25 years ago, the radio scene in LA was at least as diverse as a basic SiriusXM package. The FM dial had two jazz stations, three classical stations, three oldies stations, three easy listening stations, two massively popular college stations, two classic rock stations, two country stations, two punk rock stations, two heavy metal stations, and two pop stations -- and that is just the FM dial, and only the stations I can recall. Each and every one of those stations (with the possible exception being the college stations) made a profit and provided a service to the community. The argument in favor of corporate consolidation is that, since all of the stations sound alike and offer the same content, it doesn't matter how many individual owners exist. Of course, the corporations (and their collective greed) led to those conditions -- a perfect storm for them and a metaphorical tsunami for listeners who craved variety. >> Thus, I think your argument actually supports a model that I think you are >> against, which is a very tightly bundled package. Except that the business model has failed in satellite radio. Not enough people are buying into it; they either don't want those options or cannot justify the expense. >> 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. Considering how loose the ownership rules have gotten over the years, it won't be long before the cable companies and cable networks are one and the same. This won't motivate them to broaden the available content -- most likely, it would have the opposite effect. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- 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
