On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apologies for the tardiness, but what is the significance of the group of > channels that are highlighted (beyond simply being the top 20)? > > Based on the poorly written accompanying article, the Top 20 would seem to be the only networks guaranteed to survive if 'a la carte' became a reality. The others wouldn't necessarily fail, but they would have to compete for the scraps of remaining viewers. The reason I think it is a flawed premise is that while most people don't watch every channel they currently have, most people also don't watch one channel exclusively. Someone who craves "shark week" might also be a sports fan, and they might also have a child who craves cartoons. I still maintain that the pick-a-mix style of selecting your own channel line up would force all the networks to be unique and create programing that stands out instead of just copying or rebooting previous successes. Then again, I think if we ditched networks entirely and went with a Netflix or iTunes style of paying to select whatever programs you want whenever you want to watch them, the level of creativity would be through the proverbial roof. I used to think we were quickly headed this way, but it seems the networks are so entrenched in the old ways that they will wait until viewers have abandoned them completely before realizing their mistake. -- 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 --- 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/d/optout.
