I think it airs at 9 tonight. Just wondering when it is supposed to be available on iTunes?
Thanks
Thanks
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When will Mad Men Premiere hit iTunes?
- Thread starter grantrobarts
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a 2 hour episode - I think it is justified - they could have done a part 1 and part 2 as two separate purchases - the season pass I believe is in line with the other seasons.
I have a season pass and got an email early this morning letting me know it was available.
In general it's been the following day for many of my season passes.
I understand the logic, but they don't have a problem charging the same $2.99 per episode for a 23 minute episode as they do for an hour long show, so how about if they want to raise the price for a "two-part" episode, they start charging $1.99 for a 30 minute show?
I'm aware it's a 2 hour episode but still... what you're getting on iTunes without commercials is 90 mins $5.99 for that is a *bit* of a reach...
It's AMCs property they set the price not iTunes, iTunes pricing is specified by the content owner, Apple is the good guy here, they wanted to sell all TV shows for 99 cents each (HD) but the good ole TV studios said "no way" $2.99 which is why most people steal it for free from torrent sites, I think given the choice and convenience most would pay a buck on iTunes.
^ I think if you look back on the thread, nobody blamed Apple. Nobody even mentioned Apple. When I was complaining about the $5.99 price, I was well aware AMC was in charge.
Why is it that TV is deemed not as valuable as movies. 90 minutes is the length of many feature films - those go for $10 - $20 a pop ...
^Nothing wrong with that point, but the way I look at it is it's doubling what you have come to expect to pay. To make an apples to apples comparison, it would be like a movie being offered for $39.99 because it's 3 hours long...
Sure - I do feel like I am getting a better deal for my buck when a quality film is longer - you do get an extra hour of enjoyment for no additional cost.
I'm more prone to spend $20 on a movie that is quality and of longer length than a shorter film. But, I do get the sentiment of a TV show is a TV show no matter how good or long it is.
Movies cost much more to make.
as an example...
lord of the rings, for all 3 movies the budget was $281 million. or about $93 million per movie.
game of thrones, rumored at $50 to 60 million for the first season or $5 to 6 million an episode.
typical episode of scripted TV - $1 to 2 million per episode
and reality shows are less ($100,000 to $500,000 per 1/2 hour show)
lord of the rings = 500 thousand a minute (theatrical release of 558 minutes)
game of thrones = 90 to 110 thousand a minute (based on 10 eps at 55 mintues)
"typical show" = 23 to 47 thousand a minute (based on 42 minutes)
Those aren't the only factors in price differences. It's true that films are more expensive to shoot, to cast, to location scout, to provide production design for, etc. but movie content distribution deals are structured differently than domestic television deals. For one thing, there's no box office stream of revenue whatsoever for TV... but films have both. On the other hand, films don't have guaranteed recurring revenue before the fact *except* in the case of international distribution deals where the international distributor pays for the rights up front. The TV revenues are a little predictable, but in the case of shows on channels like AMC or, especially, HBO, there's a certain amount of subscriber revenue the channel knows it has coming in that it can budget. In AMC's case there's ad revenue as well but again those slots are paid for in advance.
So there are some idiosyncrasies in both directions.
Lastly, it's not just about "what was the cost".... Cost never sets price. Demand sets price. If you put something on the market, is what you paid ever a factor for what people will pay for it at auction? No.
The accounting calculations to determine a breakeven point are rooted in fixed cost (the items you know you've got to sink into a show like Mad Men no matter how many episodes you make, e.g. production, marketing, distribution, advertising, etc.), and variable costs (the marginal costs associated with individual episodes... e.g. per episode salaries, licensing... they paid $250,000 to use The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" in Episode 8 of Season 5)....
But ultimately, if the market can bear to pay $5.99 for a two hour episode of Mad Men, then that's what they'll charge.
Brokeback Mountain made all of its production costs back before it was ever theatrically released because after the Venice Film Festival they secured international distribution deals that paid up front. That didn't cause the distributor to give away reels to the exhibitors for free, nor did it cause movie theaters to lower ticket prices. The demand for the film was overwhelming.
I know that some people might transform this discussion into a rail about the evils of capitalism, but we're far away from talking about banks selling mortgage products the details of which were not equally understood by both parties. We're talking about a bona-fide transaction in which you, the viewer, have a demand for an entertainment product that you're not pricing out in terms of how many times it made you laugh, cry or stare at Joan.
Pricing is always about supply and demand. Cost helps accountants determine margin but it's not the driver of price.
