You should go elsewhere. I would not want ads in stuff that I paid for too. I'm not saying that what the content providers are doing is right, I'm just trying to explain why they are doing what they are doing. If they offer pay-per-view, then people like you will buy it. What they are worried about is that EVERYONE will go buy it. The problem is, the trade between ad-supported and pay-per-view is not 1-1. For every person that buys a pay-per-view show, 3 (and I'm making this up, but the spirit is true) stop watching the ad stuff. Yes, I'm saying people will watch less TV if given a pay-per-view pricing scheme.
It goes back to my HBO example. The main reason people buy HBO is because $50 is a reasonable price for good shows and cheap filler. $40 for good shows and $10 for cheap filler are not good prices for the consumers. Ultimately, consumers will buy less when offered more choice. I'll compare to the music industry below.
I can't speak for everyone but the only reason I pay that much for HBO is because there is no other option for me to see the shows I want - and I'm still forced to submit to ad bombardment ranging from 'new' food and drink products
mad: anti diet propaganda) to medical assistance for erection problems
confused: like I need it...), and yes one right after the other ...). Plus, I'm paying for a bunch of other stuff I don't really even bother watching - religious, ancient movies, documentaries, etc... I guess I wouldn't mind paying $60+ if I could have access to my favorite shows alone - no ads ofc! - and eventually I'd buy something different, like some cool $10~$20documentary.
I do understand your point of view. More pay-per-views with no ads = much less TV shows with ads = much less revenue. While this may seem a catastrophic scenario for revenue, it can be easily counter weighted by increasing the price on the pay-per-views - which would add more revenue per rent/sell AND preserve the TV audience, as less people would have access to pay-per-view.
And you know what happened to the music industry since the invention of the single? Revenues dropped like a stone. What you're saying, and I agree with you, is that because of digital delivery, the value of music to consumers has dropped. It's clear why the tv industry is fighting tooth and nail to get away from pay per view. Just like the music industry, consumers will only want to pay for the good stuff (i.e. singles) and they can't rely on filler to make up the lost revenue.
I agree with your point, but this problem with the Music Industry revenue was caused ultimately by them. Like I said, they lived in a world where 15 songs were worth $10 as a whole. When they broke that into individual prices for each music, instead of realizing what everyone knows - that everyone just wants that 1 great song - and pricing it accordingly, they wanted to show everyone that all the musics on the album were equally important, thus setting all their prices at $0.99 (to make you get to the brilliant conclusion that it's much cheaper to buy the whole album for $10).
This would have worked... in Music plane, where everyone understands that a music is much not important unless when inserted into a context. Their weakness relies on the fact that this is Earth, and their buyers aren't music specialists, but people who identify with the music they are hearing. Now, every person makes a different connection between that one music and themselves, and not necessarily that connection matches the other musics that were packed in the album - explaining why everyone thinks they are 'crappy'.
This way, when you set all musics at $0.99, the public refuses to buy the 'crappy'songs because they cost exactly the same as any 'great' song. It's pretty much like the iPhone in the smartphone market. If all those Android phones were just as expensive as an iPhone, who would buy them? That's why they are cheaper, so people at least start considering buying them. The same way, people would rather save their $10 for 10 great $0.99 hits, instead of buying 1 album full of stuff they don't like/understand.
The problem I have with that is the problem that I see in pop music. Now, everyone is trying to make good singles rather than good albums. I'm not a music snob, but there has been a convergence in musical style for pop music. Producers make singles that they know they can sell, because they can no longer rely on album sales. So, instead of 1 single subsidizing an entire album, allowing for variety and experimentation, artists are pushed to make 10 singles, homogenizing their music.
I imagine the same will happen for TV. Without reality crap shows to make up the revenue, producers will resort to making all their TV shows appeal to the widest audience possible so they can keep their revenues high. Then, every single show will become like a pop single, like Glee or something, and we will see less and less of the more stimulating, but less profitable, shows.
Indeed. This will happen, but only if the Music Industry example is followed to the letter. Simple adjustments to that model can both prevent this catastrophic scenario from happening and make all consumers happy.
For example, since no one will launch a show on the web as their first appearance, you can estimate each show's standalone value prior to launching it. Increase the price to protect the TV market share (so ppl who want too many programs will keep their cable packs) and to compensate for the lost ad revenue (or not, if they intent to keep ads on online shows, so long as they WARN AUDIENCE 1ST that they are paying to watch ads, and in this case they should have another, more expensive version of this show, ads free).
In this scenario, you can still have less profitable/experimental shows being supported by both ads and big shows/movies on the TV and increased revenue from selling popular shows/movies on the web, supported or not by ads.
From what I can see many companies have already realized this - this is why iTunes is so full with movies/series. In fact, there is nothing to fear, so long as you know how to price your stuff on the web, so your other channels don't become unprofitable. Also, there has been no need for ads on web content until now. But if the companies want more revenue for their content, I'd say they either rise their prices or give customers the choice between expensive content and no ads or cheap with ads content.
... ok I speak too much... Thx every1 who managed to get to the end of this small book for your time
