Would you pay to not watch commercials?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

On a per household basis (USA), the revenue made from all commercials ran on all channels (including the 180+ that "we never watch") is at least $54 per month. This question sets up the "name your own price" posts which is yielding numbers like quarters. Some are probably thinking even less.

What would make this a great question is to qualify it with the current reality: would you pay at least $54 each month to be rid of commercials? The marketplace is not interested in losing a huge stream of cash so that we can pay a dollar or three to be rid of commercials. What the market needs to see is a way to make more money than the current model, not substantially less.

[dgalvan123]

Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl

On a per household basis (USA), the revenue made from all commercials ran on all channels (including the 180+ that "we never watch") is at least $54 per month. This question sets up the "name your own price" posts which is yielding numbers like quarters. Some are probably thinking even less.

What would make this a great question is to qualify it with the current reality: would you pay at least $54 each month to be rid of commercials? The marketplace is not interested in losing a huge stream of cash so that we can pay a dollar or three to be rid of commercials. What the market needs to see is a way to make more money than the current model, not substantially less.

Good perspective.

The iTunes Store model of selling TV shows counts on people being willing to pay extra to not have commercials (and I suppose to get the other benefits such as being able to watch shows anywhere on multiple devices at whatever time you want.). The only people I've encountered who exclusively use iTunes for TV shows are those with viewing habits way lower than the average. That model is not a better economic deal for people with average viewing habits. And remember that Apple tried RENTING TV shows to viewers for $1 apiece, but they soon stopped doing that. Probably both because not many content providers were willing to value a view of their product at $1 (though are apparently willing to for $2 for some reason .. . ), and because not enough people were actually using the service.

Another point of view: anyone who pays that extra $5/month on their cable bill to have a DVR is, at least in part, paying for the privilege of fastforwarding through commercials.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Originally Posted by dgalvan123

Another point of view: anyone who pays that extra $5/month on their cable bill to have a DVR is, at least in part, paying for the privilege of fastforwarding through commercials.

Yes but the commercial is still there and the perception is such that not so many are skipping the commercials to make the revenue in them slip. If any of our wishes come true about killing the commercials, we are essentially killing a big subsidy in which other people (companies hoping we might see their commercial) throws a lot of money into the pot on our behalf. Kill that and either that revenue must be made up somewhere else (can anyone guess who will make that up? Hint: not Apple) or the quality and/or breadth & depth of programming will need to go down... perhaps way down.

People are generally shocked when they find out that the commercials chip in about $54 per month per household alone. Many of these people think the dream equation is cost of cable now divided by number of total channels they get times the number of channels they actually want. Usually, this would involve a mass shift from about $100 per month per household to about $5-$10 per month per household. Even more naive people dream of that MINUS the commercials too.

I just don't see the players with a lock on it all now allowing that to happen. Even Apple would prefer 30% of $100 over 30% of $5 or $10. It's not like cell phone bills plunged when Apple's revolutionary iPhone arrived. Why do we think an Apple Television or Cable alternative plan is going to be so different? And keep in mind, even if we want to dream it, who owns the pipes through which Apple's replacement solution must flow? Aren't those toll masters in the TV subscription business now? Why would they let Apple eat their lunch while depending on their broadband pipes?

The dream is a delicious one but a total mess when one thinks it through.

[StinDaWg]

Originally Posted by JGRE

And for the US, when I was there and watched a sports program, I just stopped watching it as there was a commercial between each and every sports event break: totally crazy.

There was a study done by The Wall Street Journal that showed that in a typical 3 hour football game there is only 11 minutes of action. 1 hour of commercials. 75 minutes are of the players just standing around! LOL

http://deadspin.com/5449357/theres-n...-your-football

While I don't like soccer (futbol) and find it boring, I can appreciate keeping the clock running and not cutting to commercial break during live action.

[spencers]

No, that's why I cancelled cable.