Bob in Jersey <[email protected]> wrote: > TheWrap: Not bundling programming together inevitably comes back to bite > channels large and small... lower viewer revenues translate to lesser > advertising income, which means less capital for fresh, original > programming...
I don't buy the argument since I could certainly afford to pay more for an unbundled AMC if I wasn't having to pay for 30 Spanish-language channels and a great big lineup of other stuff I am not watching and never will be. The so-called Golden Age seems to take a lot of my gold while giving me back a whole bunch of tin, cardboard, and slime. No matter how much I am forced to pay for MTV, they'll still be cranking out their dreadful 'reality' programs, not "Mad Men" quality dramas or even "Hot in Cleveland" cheesy sitcoms. And too many networks do something awesome to get carriage (Sleuth offering classic TV mysteries) then go cheap and bland once they achieve their penetration goal (Sleuth becoming Cloo and a dumping ground for USA reruns). -- Ed Dravecky III http://www.fencon.org/ -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
